Critical Role Announces Two New RPGs

Critical Role’s publishing arm, Darrington Press, has released a ‘State of the Press’ video announcing two new tabletop RPGs.

​

Two new RPG systems we’ll be releasing: Illuminated Worlds, optimized for short story arcs and adaptable to myriad settings, and Daggerheart, a fresh take on fantasy RPGs with emphasis on longer campaigns and rich character options.

At Gen Con this year, you’ll be able to play AND purchase Queen by Midnight, and you’ll even be able to take our two upcoming RPGs for a spin. We hope to see you there!

 

[darjr]

Bigger than Acq Inc?

I think your right. I’d have to look at timelines at this point. It’s all so much ancient history. Which kinda floors me.

 

[Parmandur]

I think your right. I’d have to look at timelines at this point. It’s all so much ancient history. Which kinda floors me.

So many big streamers for so long now...weird world.

 

[CleverNickName]

So many big streamers for so long now...weird world.

One of the players in my D&D group was convinced that these live-stream D&D shows were just a passing fad. "Have you ever just watched people play D&D for hours and hours?" he said, "It's the most boring thing ever!" Then he famously made the wager, "A hundred bucks says it won't last a year."

I had already watched the first dozen episodes of Critical Role on Geek & Sundry, so I took that bet.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Bigger than Acq Inc?

Acq Inc was an irregular thing, I believe, and mostly at cons and special events.

The Adventure Zone is weekly, 99% of the time, and had (and has) a huge audience with a big mainstream podcasting company (Maximum Fun, which distributes an NPR show, among other things).

Acq Inc may have beaten TAZ on an individual episode's audience numbers -- I have no idea -- but TAZ was so popular, it's been what many other actual play podcasts have cited as what got them into doing it themselves.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

One of the players in my D&D group was convinced that these live-stream D&D shows were just a passing fad. "Have you ever just watched people play D&D for hours and hours?" he said, "It's the most boring thing ever!" Then he famously made the wager, "A hundred bucks says it won't last a year."

I had already watched the first dozen episodes of Critical Role on Geek & Sundry, so I took that bet.

To be fair, it's hard to see how much of an audience some of them could have. There is a wide, wide range in show quality, even if one isn't primarily interested in professional performers.

 

[StoicElf]

If they manage to actually create something new, not just another D&D knock-off fantasy Heartbreaker, this could be succesfull. Like others have pointed out, there is an audience and a market for games played in the style of Critical Role and the D&D rules system doesn't really work well for that (too much focus on combat, not enough on the narrative etc.)

So, I am excited to see what they came up with.

 

[jgsugden]

I get why they're doing this - but I think the entire hobby will take a hit if we do not have a singular 'most popular' game in the industry. While not all convention games ar D&D, you know that there will be people playing it there. If you know D&D rules well, you know there will be something you can play. If, on the otherhand, you go to a convention and find that there are 16 Daggerheart Games, 14 D&D games, 12 Pathfinder Games, 11 Black Fag, and 13 various other games - you might end up seeing 30 empty tables and one of the games totally 'sold out' ... but which game is sod out might differ from conventon to convention.

There is a time and $ investment in learning a rule set. Having so many options means that we can afford less specialization and end up having more of the RPG knowledge we have be irrelevant during any given gaming experience.

I just wish WotC hadn't screwed this up, and that we could all just work together to make the one best playground for everyone to share.

 

[Parmandur]

I get why they're doing this - but I think the entire hobby will take a hit if we do not have a singular 'most popular' game in the industry. While not all convention games ar D&D, you know that there will be people playing it there. If you know D&D rules well, you know there will be something you can play. If, on the otherhand, you go to a convention and find that there are 16 Daggerheart Games, 14 D&D games, 12 Pathfinder Games, 11 Black Fag, and 13 various other games - you might end up seeing 30 empty tables and one of the games totally 'sold out' ... but which game is sod out might differ from conventon to convention.

There is a time and $ investment in learning a rule set. Having so many options means that we can afford less specialization and end up having more of the RPG knowledge we have be irrelevant during any given gaming experience.

I just wish WotC hadn't screwed this up, and that we could all just work together to make the one best playground for everyone to share.

Not that I think this will displace D&D grom Numero Uno (Pathfinder may take a bump on the charts), but monopolies are not healthy. Competition is good for everyone.

 

[Aldarc]

I get why they're doing this - but I think the entire hobby will take a hit if we do not have a singular 'most popular' game in the industry. While not all convention games ar D&D, you know that there will be people playing it there. If you know D&D rules well, you know there will be something you can play. If, on the otherhand, you go to a convention and find that there are 16 Daggerheart Games, 14 D&D games, 12 Pathfinder Games, 11 Black Fag, and 13 various other games - you might end up seeing 30 empty tables and one of the games totally 'sold out' ... but which game is sod out might differ from conventon to convention.

This seems like a massive overreaction. This doesn't really change anything. D&D will still be the 800 lb. gorilla throwing its weight around in the hobby.

There is a time and $ investment in learning a rule set. Having so many options means that we can afford less specialization and end up having more of the RPG knowledge we have be irrelevant during any given gaming experience.

The time and money investment in learning a new rule set is vastly overestimated, especially with so many d20 D&D-inspired heartbreakers on the market. And many games are cheaper than D&D's money investment.

I just wish WotC hadn't screwed this up, and that we could all just work together to make the one best playground for everyone to share.

This was apparently in the works for a year. There were signs that Critical Role wanted more creative control over their IP. WotC's recents actions may have sped things up, but a lot of various games were in development before the WotC fiasco.

 

[R_Chance]

I'm not a fan of streaming games. I don't dislike them. I don't have time for them really. The time I have is spent working on my campaign and running it. I gather CR is at the top of the streaming pile. It should be, top notch voice actors would make for the best game to watch. The question is whether any of this translates to designing a new game, or games. A game designed for streaming use might, or might not, be the best for ordinary table top gaming. It might be good for online games. Again, or not. The name recognition and fans will sell a certain amount of books (and electronic versions) no matter what. If the game is not "good", or does not separate itself from the pack of existing games, I don't think it will have legs in the ttrpg market. As always this is imho, and ymmv.

Ending with three acronyms