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.

 

[SteveC]

I think it is worth noting that Matt's primary responsibility is NOT to run a fun game, but rather to run a game that entertains the audience.

I think that's a very good point, and it was what I was attempting to say, yet doing it poorly. A fun game for me and my friends isn't the same thing at all as what Matt's doing. It should be fun for the players (because enthusiasm makes for a good show), but it's more about the audience. I think Matt should be talking about what's going on with the rules until it makes the stream less fun for those of us watching, so we'll keep watching.

 

[Reynard]

I think that's a very good point, and it was what I was attempting to say, yet doing it poorly. A fun game for me and my friends isn't the same thing at all as what Matt's doing. It should be fun for the players (because enthusiasm makes for a good show), but it's more about the audience. I think Matt should be talking about what's going on with the rules until it makes the stream less fun for those of us watching, so we'll keep watching.

He does a little of that. I am not sure the stream would benefit from too much more. But sure, there is a balance to be found and everyone watching is going to have a different degree of "that is too much rules talking; back to the funny voices, screen monkey!"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ok... because your anecdotal experience is all the data needed to come to a sound conclusion... especially since you earlier rejected another poster's anecdotal claim... but yes continue to tell me how I'm wrong with your minimal data points. I'm not wrong because I haven't come to a conclusion yet, or are you claiming I'm flatly wrong because I wont accept your conclusion from a minimal data set as truth?

Looks like you did reach a conclusion to me:

I'm not saying DH definitively isn't faster than D&D... I'm saying I think it's premature to start claiming it runs 2x faster.

The first part isn't a conclusion, it's just heavily weighted towards one conclusion. The second part however is a conclusion.

Furthermore, it's one made from ignorance. You haven't played the game, and I'm guessing you never will because it seems like as you said earlier, you're being turned off that game because people aren't agreeing with you. You said at that point you'd stop arguing about it, but seem to have changed your mind.

My anecdotal experience, as a data set, is absolutely superior to your attempted analysis of CR episodes, which as I've pointed out, doesn't even appear to be attempting like-to-like comparison. That data is anecdotal doesn't make it invalid. It means it's much less useful than scientifically gathered data, sure, wildly so, but there's no science in what you're doing. If my data set is minimal, yours is distinctly less than minimal, so that doesn't seem to help your position.

Maybe listen to people who have actually played a game, rather than sneering at them and telling them that they shouldn't be saying the game is faster. No-one is telling you that you have to go around two with a bell and wearing a board saying "DH runs faster than D&D", mate, are they? But you expressing the apparently conclusive opinion that it's "premature" to state our experience that DH runs significantly faster than D&D is pretty silly stuff, and essentially an argument from ignorance.

EDIT: Wait are you claiming the players have almost died in every encounter? Are you actually watching the series because that is flat out false. I believe there was one encounter (unless I missed it and please let me know which ones) where possible death came up... that was it

You know that being on 2 HP in DH means you're one swing from death, right? 3HP if you're out of armour slots. I'm saying any of those fights could have become a TPK very rapidly. My point isn't "OMG THEY NEARLY DIED", it's that these are Deadly-equivalent encounters.

I've also run both - and, despite the fact that I (like many of us) have literally years and hundreds more sessions with 5e than DH the question isn't if 5e combat is faster but by how much.

I think you mean "if DH's combat is faster", otherwise you wouldn't have the "despite..." etc., right? Maybe you can rephrase for my dumb tired brain?

And getting true "like for like" comparisons is an art given different levels mean different things (I'd go with DH1 = 5e 3) and different levels of danger.

Yes it is but I'd agree DH = 5E 3rd, for sure, and I'd assert that DH standard encounter build = Deadly encounter by D&D standards (I think that's fairly uncontroversial if you even look at the rules).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It may be faster for your group, but that doesn't tell us anything about the general situation.

I think it does because of how much faster it is. It certainly has more probative value than what is attempting to be done here. The rules are simply less complex and require far less admin/checking. Definitely different people will see different levels of speed gain though.

The minimal gain would be seen in a group where no-one described any of their actions, no-one ever did anything clever or unusual, they just said stuff like "I hit AC 17 for 7 slashing damage, I am attacking Orc #3", and all the PCs were Champion Fighters or similar.

Maybe that means they take a long time selecting what is optimal, rather than just hitting everything with an axe, which is typically how my players approach the game. Whereas the lack of familiarity with DH means they make decisions based on the narrative flow, rather than optimal tactics?

5E isn't a game where taking a long time to select what is "optimal" makes much sense (it's not really a tactical game like 4E, or a massive min-max "stack the bonuses" game like 3.XE), and it's not something I've observed in 5E play. I think "hitting things with an axe" is generally pretty normal. If anything, my experience is that 5E players speed up over time, they don't slow down (at least compared to their speed at about 3rd level).

Re: going with narrative flow - I think that's similar in both games, at least with my group. The difficulty with D&D is that there are some quite complex rules for certain things, which even experienced players may need to look up/check.

 

[Imaro]

Looks like you did reach a conclusion to me:


The first part isn't a conclusion, it's just heavily weighted towards one conclusion. The second part however is a conclusion.

Nope, it's stating... Need more data.

Furthermore, it's one made from ignorance. You haven't played the game, and I'm guessing you never will because it seems like as you said earlier, you're being turned off that game because people aren't agreeing with you. You said at that point you'd stop arguing about it, but seem to have changed your mind.

I've admitted i don't have experience playing the game... thus I believe it is premature to declare it 2x faster than 5e... As for whether I am going to play the game, I've bought it, read it, and have a group who made characters up last Saturday to play this Saturday. I have posted that in other threads and possibly this one... so while we are on the subject of ignorance... how about you stop assuming what I'll do from a position of ignorance.

Furthermore it's not about agreement it's about the type of browbeating and aggressiveness you're displaying in this very post because I won't accept what you believe to be true without further (my own) evidence.

My anecdotal experience, as a data set, is absolutely superior to your attempted analysis of CR episodes, which as I've pointed out, doesn't even appear to be attempting like-to-like comparison. That data is anecdotal doesn't make it invalid. It means it's much less useful than scientifically gathered data, sure, wildly so, but there's no science in what you're doing. If my data set is minimal, yours is distinctly less than minimal, so that doesn't seem to help your position.

Being anecdotal makes it pointless for you to base your entire argument on... at least if you want to actually convince anyone else. Oh and I love how you present non-scientific data while trying to lambast an observation I made as non-scientific... the same thing you did earlier with someone else's anecdote. Kettle meet pot.

Maybe listen to people who have actually played a game, rather than sneering at them and telling them that they shouldn't be saying the game is faster. No-one is telling you that you have to go around two with a bell and wearing a board saying "DH runs faster than D&D", mate, are they? But you expressing the apparently conclusive opinion that it's "premature" to state our experience that DH runs significantly faster than D&D is pretty silly stuff, and essentially an argument from ignorance.

Maybe don't speak down to me like I'm a child since I'm not one, and I'm definitely not yours. I have an opinion just like yours and contrary to what you've conned yourself into believing yours isn't any more scientific or based in data than mine. I haven't "sneered" at anyone up to this point, so don't try to blame me for the fact that you can't take a dissenting opinion and discuss it like an adult.

You know that being on 2 HP in DH means you're one swing from death, right? 3HP if you're out of armour slots. I'm saying any of those fights could have become a TPK very rapidly. My point isn't "OMG THEY NEARLY DIED", it's that these are Deadly-equivalent encounters.

So again... no one actually faced death and youdon't actually know how deadly any of the encounters actually were. Got it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have an opinion just like yours and contrary to what you've conned yourself into believing yours isn't any more scientific or based in data than mine. I haven't "sneered" at anyone up to this point, so don't try to blame me for the fact that you can't take a dissenting opinion and discuss it like an adult.

Telling other people they've "conned themselves" is absolutely sneering at them, and I don't think it's "discussing like an adult", personally but I guess YMMV and all that.

Being anecdotal makes it pointless for you to base your entire argument on... at least if you want to actually convince anyone else.

Nah.

If someone you know says they went to a play and it had incredible lighting and stage effects, you don't say "Well that's just anecdote, I'm going to assume this person is wrong", do you? Equally when you ask someone about how a TTRPG played, you don't assume that because their information is technically "anecdotal" (or "empirical" would be more or at least equally correct, I note) that it's all worthless nonsense to be discarded and ignored, do you? Almost all information conveyed on this board about RPGs is "anecdotal" by the approach you're using here, yet you engage with it, no?

You keep claiming I dismissed anecdotal data re: DH on the basis of it being anecdotal from someone who played it, but when did I do that? Could you point me to the post? I can't find it.

So again... no one actually faced death and youdon't actually know how deadly any of the encounters actually were. Got it.

I'm genuinely confused by what you're trying to say here. I'm talking about a profound rules difference.

 

[Imaro]

Telling other people they've "conned themselves" is absolutely sneering at them, and I don't think it's "discussing like an adult", personally but I guess YMMV and all that.

Yes because you set a totally different tone for this conversation with your last post... I think I was pretty clear about that when I used the words browbeating and aggressive.

Nah.

If someone you know says they went to a play and it had incredible lighting and stage effects, you don't say "Well that's just anecdote, I'm going to assume this person is wrong", do you? Equally when you ask someone about how a TTRPG played, you don't assume that because their information "anecdotal" (or "empirical" would be more at least equally correct, I note) that it's all worthless nonsense to be discarded and ignored, do you? Almost all information conveyed on this board about RPGs is "anecdotal" by the approach you're using here, yet you engage with it, no?

I did engage with it... what you have a problem with is that my engagement is... I need more data before I accept X as a fact. Why is this such an issue for you. I...disagree...with...you. You disagree with me. we can do that without the aggressiveness and trying to force me to accept what you believe. Maybe after my game tomorrow I'll feel otherwise, thought with the type of person I am I will probably want to play up into high level for myself. The question is why can't you accept that?

You keep claiming I dismissed anecdotal data re: DH from someone who played it, but when did I do that? Could you point me to the post?

Just because it's slower than your group playing 5E, it does not logically follow that the performance is the sole or main issue. In fact, I would suggest Occam's Razor says the players and their aptitude with the rules are most likely to be the main issue - and if you've seen their 5E stuff (and I understand you're saying you haven't), you'd know these guys and gals and non-binary pals are... well... most like that player some groups have who just never quite learns the rules. Is just never that fast at adding stuff up. That keeps forgetting how certain abilities work. The performance factors in, but I think that's more of a flat rather than multiplicative issue, whereas DH vs 5E rules? That's multiplicative (or divisive? you know what I mean! I think!) - I speak from recent experience. My players are fairly experienced with 5E, and competent, for the most part, and DH was literally 5x or more faster, rules-wise, even new to them. But obviously describing actions and so on (the performance) isn't any faster.

You have a serious knack for dismissing what others believe and inserting your own belief as the only possible answer. This was his experience and you believe you can explain it away as opposed to accepting his data.

I'm genuinely confused by what you're trying to say here. I'm talking about a profound rules difference.

you're assuming. you don't have access to Matt's encounter notes, or anything else to definitively claim all the fights were deadly in all 4/5 episodes. Furthermore death was only on the table in one fight... that's a fact other than that it's all speculation

 

[SteveC]

I've admitted i don't have experience playing the game... thus I believe it is premature to declare it 2x faster than 5e... As for whether I am going to play the game, I've bought it, read it, and have a group who made characters up last Saturday to play this Saturday. I have posted that in other threads and possibly this one... so while we are on the subject of ignorance... how about you stop assuming what I'll do from a position of ignorance.

I wanted to comment on this because I've played a beta campaign and run the quickstart. I've found the biggest issue with speed on Daggerheart to be familiarity with the rules and how to do things. Comparing speed of 5E games (where I assume that a lot of people have been playing for years and years) isn't a fair benchmark. I'm sure that there's someone out there who has played 57 Daggerheart sessions already and completed a campaign to level 10 ... that's a rare experience a month out from launch.

And I really do hope you (and others reading this) do try the game out. Maybe it will not be for you, but you might also be able to find some things to take with you to your game of choice.

And I guess I'll say that sometimes you're happy with the things you can see and posts you can't read, since the rest of what you're replying to is something I'm happy to not have to deal with.

And since there was just an announcement that Foundry VTT is supported by Darrington, I will be able to play DH virtually with my friends from all over the country, which gives a big YAY from me.

 

[Imaro]

I wanted to comment on this because I've played a beta campaign and run the quickstart. I've found the biggest issue with speed on Daggerheart to be familiarity with the rules and how to do things. Comparing speed of 5E games (where I assume that a lot of people have been playing for years and years) isn't a fair benchmark. I'm sure that there's someone out there who has played 57 Daggerheart sessions already and completed a campaign to level 10 ... that's a rare experience a month out from launch.

And I really do hope you (and others reading this) do try the game out. Maybe it will not be for you, but you might also be able to find some things to take with you to your game of choice.

And I guess I'll say that sometimes you're happy with the things you can see and posts you can't read, since the rest of what you're replying to is something I'm happy to not have to deal with.

And since there was just an announcement that Foundry VTT is supported by Darrington, I will be able to play DH virtually with my friends from all over the country, which gives a big YAY from me.

No worries I'm excited about my game tomorrow and have no plans to cancel it. We're doing a mini-campaign (unless the players want to keep going) in the Witherwild frame (not ready just yet to create my own but I have actually been eyeing Planescape and thinking of converting it if I stick with Daggerheart... something about both of them seems to go together).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes because you set a totally different tone for this conversation with your last post... I think I was pretty clear about that when I used the words browbeating and aggressive.

I see! I do find it odd that you'd complain about a behaviour then just engage in it. Seems like obvious hypocrisy but such is life! Sorry for dragging you into the mud as it were!

I did engage with it... what you have a problem with is that my engagement is... I need more data before I accept X as a fact. Why is this such an issue for you. I...disagree...with...you. You disagree with me. we can do that without the aggressiveness and trying to force me to accept what you believe. Maybe after my game tomorrow I'll feel otherwise, thought with the type of person I am I will probably want to play up into high level for myself. The question is why can't you accept that?

I don't think that is the question, actually, but okay, I see your position. I do think you're wrong but you'll probably see that so I'm less concerned than I was when I thought you weren't going to actually play it.

You have a serious knack for dismissing what others believe and inserting your own belief as the only possible answer. This was his experience and you believe you can explain it away as opposed to accepting his data.

I'm not sure if you're confused about what @Paul Farquhar said but he's not talking about DH experience - he hasn't played DH. He's saying "my D&D group runs faster than the CR AoU group", which I'm sure is true - you'll note if you re-read that I do not, contrary to your apparent assertion, dismiss that or claim it was untrue for him to say.

What I pointed out is that it's illogical to assume that difference is purely down to "performance", which is what he asserted. And it is illogical - there are more likely proximate causes. That's not dismissing his anecdotal experience at all. My point is re: the causal assumption based on the time comparison. It's also not saying my own "belief" is correct - just because something is logical doesn't mean it's always the case. You're overreading my point to mean more than it does.