Critical Role to Use D&D 2024 Rules For Campaign Four, Expands to Three Tables and Thirteen Players

Critical Role will continue to use Dungeons & Dragons as the play system for its upcoming campaign, with the cast expanding to three distinct tables consisting of a total of 13 players. Today, Critical Role announced new details about its new campaign, which is set to air on October 4th. The new campaign will feature the full founding cast members as players, alongside several new players. In total, the cast includes Laura Bailey, Luis Carazo, Robbie Daymond, Aabria Iyengar, Taliesin Jaffe, Ashley Johnson, Matthew Mercer, Whitney Moore, Liam O’Brien, Marisha Ray, Sam Riegel, Alexander Ward, and Travis Willingham, with the previously announced Brennan Lee Mulligan serving as GM.

The campaign itself will be run as a "West Marches" style of campaign, with three separate groups of players exploring the world. The groups are divided into gameplay styles, with a combat-focused Soldiers group, a lore/exploration-focused Seekers group, and a intrigue-focused Schemers group. All three groups will explore the world of Araman, created by Mulligan for the campaign.

Perhaps most importantly, Critical Role will not be switching to Daggerheart for the fourth campaign. Instead, they'll be opting for the new 2024 ruleset of Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition. Daggerheart will be represented at Critical Role via the Age of Umbra and "other" Actual Play series, as well as partnerships with other Actual Play troupes.

 

[CleverNickName]

It’s wishful thinking of the anti d&d/wotc crowd plus daggerheart sold really well.

Yeah, that's what others have said as well. I've looked around in this thread and others, and that does seem to be the case (at least in part.)

I guess I don't really understand that sentiment. "I hope D&D fails so that my favorite game will suddenly do better" is a really warped perspective. Like--I hope there are more selling points for your favorite game than the lack of other options.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, that's what others have said as well. I've looked around in this thread and others, and that does seem to be the case (at least in part.)

I guess I don't really understand that sentiment. "I hope D&D fails so that my favorite game will suddenly do better" is a really warped perspective. Like--I hope there are more selling points for your favorite game than the lack of other options.

D&D's massive dominance has clear negative impacts on other games. People who like other games often wish D&D was not so dominant for legitimate reasons.

 

[CleverNickName]

D&D's massive dominance has clear negative impacts on other games. People who like other games often wish D&D was not so dominant for legitimate reasons.

What clear negative impacts are these? I'm sure they exist; everything has its downsides. I'm just struggling to see them.

From what I can tell, D&D's dominance has elevated the profile of the hobby as a whole, and legitimized (maybe even created) a whole niche in the gaming industry. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of TTRPGs available now that would not exist at all without D&D's influence.

As much as I love Daggerheart, I acknowledge it didn't form in a vacuum.

 

[AlViking]

D&D's massive dominance has clear negative impacts on other games. People who like other games often wish D&D was not so dominant for legitimate reasons.

Are the D&D police coming to your house, breaking up your game? Secretly infiltrating your house and replacing rules with D&D rules?

No? Then how is it detrimental? People may choose to play D&D over your preferred game, but there's no guarantee they would flock to other game.

Because to me saying that D&D is somehow detrimental to other games sounds like sour grapes.

 

[Scribe]

There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of TTRPGs available now that would not exist at all without D&D's influence.

And they all get less play than they could.

 

[Reynard]

What clear negative impacts are these? I'm sure they exist; everything has its downsides. I'm just struggling to see them.

From what I can tell, D&D's dominance has elevated the profile of the hobby as a whole, and legitimized (maybe even created) a whole niche in the gaming industry. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of TTRPGs available now that would not exist at all without D&D's influence.

As much as I love Daggerheart, I acknowledge it didn't form in a vacuum.

Your thesis is that it's D&D's dominance that creates other games. That is a weird take considering other games essentially started to appear the moment D&D did. The fact of D&D existing drove the creation of alternatives because the value of the form was immediately apparent. What its dominance does is make it harder for those alternatives to get a foothold in the distribution network.

 

[Reynard]

Are the D&D police coming to your house, breaking up your game? Secretly infiltrating your house and replacing rules with D&D rules?

No? Then how is it detrimental? People may choose to play D&D over your preferred game, but there's no guarantee they would flock to other game.

Because to me saying that D&D is somehow detrimental to other games sounds like sour grapes.

Anytime you answer your own questions with answers that support your own conclusions, you should reconsider your rhetorical strategy.

That said: if you can't fathom how one game's dominance in the distribution system harms other games, my guess is you haven't ever given it much thought.

"Saying that Windows' monopoly on the OS industry is bad is just sour grapes!" That is literally what you sound like.

 

[CleverNickName]

And they all get less play than they could.

That's true even without D&D, though. It's a crowded market now, and D&D is just one game among many.

The theory is that if D&D ceases to be, all of its players would spread out evenly among all other available options. But I think it's more likely they would gravitate to the most similar option available to what they're familiar with, or just keep playing the 5E rules in the CC.

What its dominance does is make it harder for those alternatives to get a foothold in the distribution network.

I'm not saying this doesn't happen, I'm just wondering how.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What clear negative impacts are these? I'm sure they exist; everything has its downsides. I'm just struggling to see them.

From what I can tell, D&D's dominance has elevated the profile of the hobby as a whole, and legitimized (maybe even created) a whole niche in the gaming industry. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of TTRPGs available now that would not exist at all without D&D's influence.

As much as I love Daggerheart, I acknowledge it didn't form in a vacuum.

Very true. I suppose the issue is at this point, do all those other games still need D&D sitting on top of the heap like an emperor?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's true even without D&D, though. It's a crowded market now, and D&D is just one game among many.

The theory is that if D&D ceases to be, all of its players would spread out evenly among all other available options. But I think it's more likely they would gravitate to the most similar option available to what they're familiar with, or just keep playing the 5E rules in the CC.


I'm not saying this doesn't happen, I'm just wondering how.

The vast majority of D&D's players don't know the CC (or the OGL, for that matter) exist.