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.

 

[AlViking]

not sure I follow, adventures, bestiaries, etc. are also designed with the system in mind, and which system to choose is the developer’s choice

Those third parties have the option to create something new if they want. If they're just doing supplements it's their choice. There's no reason to believe that many of them would exist if they had to do their own thing.

 

[Aldarc]

D&D also created the industry, blazed the trail, even continues to build the market. Game stores pay their rent based on interest in D&D (and Magic, of course). One could argue that the entire TTRPG market would be hurt by D&D's disappearance.

From what I have heard, D&D could disappear and most of those game stores could pay their rent entirely with Magic. The latest Magic set (Final Fantasy) made $200 million in one day, which is potentially double what the 2014 D&D PHB made across ten years.

 

[thatOneLinuxDM]

It's interesting to me that people always say that D&D 5e succeeded because of CR. But every other game has the same opportunity to do live streams. Admittedly the CR cast is amazingly talented, but there are a lot of talented and charismatic people out there.

CR along with other factors helped of course, but it's not like there's any limit to what games can be used for a stream. If other games CR did shows for had been popular I'm sure we would see more of them.

I can't say I've personally seen people say that 5e succeeded because of CR, if anything I've heard of more people get pointed towards D&D because of Stranger Things. There are noticeable bumps on the search graphs after Stranger Things and BG3 come out in their respective media. CR is more of a slow burn (like the rest of the actual-play groups.)

I started playing D&D again without actual-play influence, but I can completely understand how people would have gotten into D&D (and TTRPGs more generally) because of CR.

 

[thatOneLinuxDM]

Daggerheart is doing extremely well, but that doesn’t even mean it is necessarily in some life or death contest with D&D. The TTRPG industry is not a zero-sum, winner take all scene, even if D&D is the lion's share of the market.

Yeah, it's definitely not life or death. I'm personally unconvinced by the claim that Daggerheart is doing extremely well because Critical Role announcing it 'sold out' doesn't tell us anything concrete about its staying power. It will always have those people who buy it because they buy anything vaguely attached to Critical Role and then it lives on their shelf for years because they're not actually playing it.

I've played Daggerheart, it's fine, it's not for me because I skew more towards the 'game' end of the spectrum for my TTRPGs, but I still want to see it succeed because I think it provides an avenue for other people to get into the hobby as a whole. If people get in because of Daggerheart and then advance to other systems, that's great too.

 

[kermit4karate]

Another thing about some of the frequent arguments for/against D&D...most players don't care as much about game mechanics as game developers tend to think they do. They just don't.

What most people don't like to do, though, is learn something new. Once something exists that fills a want/need for them, sometimes that's it. That's enough. They aren't looking for something to replace it.

Facebook doesn't continue being Facebook because it has the best user interface, easiest tools, etc. It continues being Facebook just because it exists and a couple billion people are already familiar with it. It's good enough for most people. They don't need or want something else.

 

[roguish]

I was among the people who thought Campaign 4 might go with Daggerheart, and I'd like to make it clear this had nothing to do with wishful thinking, or anti-D&D sentiment or whatever. It was just a guess, and it was based mostly on the fact that CR at some point started distancing itself from D&D lore and IP.

On the table they replaced names, for example saying Dawnfather instead of Pelor (to the point of correcting each other if an old name slipped), they stopped using D&D material for antagonists and NPCs (no more things like Vecna as the BBEG), and the Tal'dorei Reborn book (2021) was a lot more careful than its predecessor (2017) with D&D IP, while still using the OGL: it says it's compatible with "5th edition" instead of "D&D 5e", it has a section on "half-giants" instead of goliaths etc.

AFAIK, no one knows what prompted this. Maybe as the company grew, lawyers got into the picture and said "hey, you gotta cover your bases". And to be fair, they also distanced themselves from Pathfinder IP, saying Everlight instead of Sarenrae. But maybe something spooked them? In the news or behind the scenes? I mean, if my future was deeply invested, financially and otherwise, on Critical Role, and some Hasbro suit came out and said "we'll monetise our D&D property by milking its IP!", I'd take it as a threat. And perhaps I'd consider taking steps to gently, without rocking the boat, disentangle myself from the threat.

The OGL fiasco proved that WotC is not immune to catastrophic decisions. And it would surely be catastrophic for Wizards to go after actual play shows, and especially CR, for using their IP. They'd be shooting themselves in the leg. But would that stop them? Can anyone guarantee that it will stop them, now and tomorrow and 10 years later, when who knows who'll even own the damn thing?

In that climate, and with Daggerheart brewing, surely it wasn't irrational to think that Campaign 4 might use a different game system, was it?

In any case, now that we got the reveal, I'm personally pleased. I think running D&D with expertise, and with experience in tweaking and homebrewing stuff, is gonna be a lot better than wrangling this new system.

 

[thatOneLinuxDM]

AFAIK, no one knows what prompted this. Maybe as the company grew, lawyers got into the picture and said "hey, you gotta cover your bases". And to be fair, they also distanced themselves from Pathfinder IP, saying Everlight instead of Sarenrae. But maybe something spooked them? In the news or behind the scenes? I mean, if my future was deeply invested, financially and otherwise, on Critical Role, and some Hasbro suit came out and said "we'll monetise our D&D property by milking its IP!", I'd take it as a threat. And perhaps I'd consider taking steps to gently, without rocking the boat, disentangle myself from the threat.

I don't think it's that insidious, it's probably just that it's easier to rename everything if you're trying to build your own, consistent world. You don't have to worry about breaking D&D canon if your Raven Queen isn't the Raven Queen from 4th edition.

I've been in conversations with people who think their Vecna story is "canon D&D" (whatever that is) because of CR...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I was among the people who thought Campaign 4 might go with Daggerheart, and I'd like to make it clear this had nothing to do with wishful thinking, or anti-D&D sentiment or whatever. It was just a guess, and it was based mostly on the fact that CR at some point started distancing itself from D&D lore and IP.

On the table they replaced names, for example saying Dawnfather instead of Pelor (to the point of correcting each other if an old name slipped), they stopped using D&D material for antagonists and NPCs (no more things like Vecna as the BBEG), and the Tal'dorei Reborn book (2021) was a lot more careful than its predecessor (2017) with D&D IP, while still using the OGL: it says it's compatible with "5th edition" instead of "D&D 5e", it has a section on "half-giants" instead of goliaths etc.

AFAIK, no one knows what prompted this. Maybe as the company grew, lawyers got into the picture and said "hey, you gotta cover your bases". And to be fair, they also distanced themselves from Pathfinder IP, saying Everlight instead of Sarenrae. But maybe something spooked them? In the news or behind the scenes? I mean, if my future was deeply invested, financially and otherwise, on Critical Role, and some Hasbro suit came out and said "we'll monetise our D&D property by milking its IP!", I'd take it as a threat. And perhaps I'd consider taking steps to gently, without rocking the boat, disentangle myself from the threat.

The OGL fiasco proved that WotC is not immune to catastrophic decisions. And it would surely be catastrophic for Wizards to go after actual play shows, and especially CR, for using their IP. They'd be shooting themselves in the leg. But would that stop them? Can anyone guarantee that it will stop them, now and tomorrow and 10 years later, when who knows who'll even own the damn thing?

In that climate, and with Daggerheart brewing, surely it wasn't irrational to think that Campaign 4 might use a different game system, was it?

In any case, now that we got the reveal, I'm personally pleased. I think running D&D with expertise, and with experience in tweaking and homebrewing stuff, is gonna be a lot better than wrangling this new system.

I certainly noticed that distancing too, and I am sure some of it was in case they wanted or needed to ditch the D&D.
But I think the main reason was the animated shows. They don't want to use WotC IP for those.

 

[kermit4karate]

I was among the people who thought Campaign 4 might go with Daggerheart, and I'd like to make it clear this had nothing to do with wishful thinking, or anti-D&D sentiment or whatever. It was just a guess, and it was based mostly on the fact that CR at some point started distancing itself from D&D lore and IP.

On the table they replaced names, for example saying Dawnfather instead of Pelor (to the point of correcting each other if an old name slipped), they stopped using D&D material for antagonists and NPCs (no more things like Vecna as the BBEG), and the Tal'dorei Reborn book (2021) was a lot more careful than its predecessor (2017) with D&D IP, while still using the OGL: it says it's compatible with "5th edition" instead of "D&D 5e", it has a section on "half-giants" instead of goliaths etc.

AFAIK, no one knows what prompted this. Maybe as the company grew, lawyers got into the picture and said "hey, you gotta cover your bases". And to be fair, they also distanced themselves from Pathfinder IP, saying Everlight instead of Sarenrae. But maybe something spooked them? In the news or behind the scenes? I mean, if my future was deeply invested, financially and otherwise, on Critical Role, and some Hasbro suit came out and said "we'll monetise our D&D property by milking its IP!", I'd take it as a threat. And perhaps I'd consider taking steps to gently, without rocking the boat, disentangle myself from the threat.

The OGL fiasco proved that WotC is not immune to catastrophic decisions. And it would surely be catastrophic for Wizards to go after actual play shows, and especially CR, for using their IP. They'd be shooting themselves in the leg. But would that stop them? Can anyone guarantee that it will stop them, now and tomorrow and 10 years later, when who knows who'll even own the damn thing?

In that climate, and with Daggerheart brewing, surely it wasn't irrational to think that Campaign 4 might use a different game system, was it?

In any case, now that we got the reveal, I'm personally pleased. I think running D&D with expertise, and with experience in tweaking and homebrewing stuff, is gonna be a lot better than wrangling this new system.

Sometimes too, ESPECIALLY in the entertainment business, which CR is also in, it comes down to money. Not necessarily in the nefarious "you're a sellout!" way, but just dollars and cents -- how someone pays the bills.

With so much money behind and around D&D, I'd bet $2 (!) CR was offered enough money to make it worth their while, and that heavily factored into their decision to choose D&D.

It's a bit adolescent and naive to think the decision only came down to "Hmm... Which system do I like best?"

 

[Reynard]

So because you don't personally care for the game it's "overstayed it's welcome" is your justification for the harm it's doing? That's kind of what the expression sour grapes means. If the only negative impact of D&D's popularity is that you want something else, it's not the fault of the game.

No. Those are two separate things. I already explained the harm.