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.

 

[Reynard]

My other point still stands as well. There's nothing stopping any other game from being streamed and gaining traction. D&D certainly has traction because of it's history, but it's current dominance was in no way preordained.

Inertia is the most powerful force in industry dominance.

 

[TiQuinn]

That's fair, maybe I should have said unsubstantiated or presented without evidence?

It's a bit tricky when it comes to citing journalism because it's not generally good data.

So I guess I don’t agree on what the bar for evidence here is.

 

[mamba]

You were responding to a post where I was responding to this post Post

I was responding to the part I quoted, which was “Software has to be designed with the operating system in mind. For games it's their choice.”

At that time I asked for clarification because much like game designers have a choice what to work on, software developers do too, so I was not seeing the distinction you were making.

The post claimed that D&D's market dominance was just the same as the dominance of Windows. I don't see much similarity in how they became dominant or in the restrictions software developers have and people who publish products for TTRPGs.

I realize you don’t, but the two function very similarly regardless, and you have not managed to make that case since

If you're publishing D&D supplements, that's your choice. Nothing stops you from publishing your own game in addition to that product. Nothing stops you from focusing solely on stand-alone games. For software it's different, you have to choose the platform(s).

that is literally the same thing, you can develop an app for Windows, another OS, system independent, or work on a competing OS.

 

[AlViking]

Inertia is the most powerful force in industry dominance.

Almost all versions of D&D after the 80s boom and previous to 5e had an initial spike in sales followed by a drop-off. The devs for 5e thought they were working on a final version of the game just to keep the IP alive. The years of growth with are a major change to the pattern of boom and flattening or falling sales.

Inertia may have a lot to do with that initial growth, it doesn't sustain it. But even if it is a major factor, so what? A lot of brands that were once dominant slowly sank into obscurity.

 

[Reynard]

Almost all versions of D&D after the 80s boom and previous to 5e had an initial spike in sales followed by a drop-off. The devs for 5e thought they were working on a final version of the game just to keep the IP alive. The years of growth with are a major change to the pattern of boom and flattening or falling sales.

Inertia may have a lot to do with that initial growth, it doesn't sustain it. But even if it is a major factor, so what? A lot of brands that were once dominant slowly sank into obscurity.

My point was that D&D is not inherently better than 80% of other games on the market and its brand does more to keep it dominant than its system.

 

[AlViking]

I was responding to the part I quoted, which was “Software has to be designed with the operating system in mind. For games it's their choice.”

At that time I asked for clarification because much like game designers have a choice what to work on, software developers do too, so I was not seeing the distinction you were making.


I realize you don’t, but the two function very similarly regardless, and you have not managed to make that case since


that is literally the same thing, you can develop an app for Windows, platform independent, or work on a competing OS.

Nothing is stopping other companies from creating new games. With crowdfunding options available it's even easier than before. D&D may be dominant but it's still an open playing field unlike operating systems.

 

[AlViking]

My point was that D&D is not inherently better than 80% of other games on the market and its brand does more to keep it dominant than its system.

Did I say anything about it being "better"? Better is in the eye of the beholder. Matt has stated that they decided to use D&D instead of PF because 5e was better for streaming because of it's relative simplicity. Having looked into PF, that simplicity also made 5e a better game for me.

 

[kermit4karate]

My point was that D&D is not inherently better than 80% of other games on the market and its brand does more to keep it dominant than its system.

I'll agree with that. It isn't "only" the brand, though, that keeps it dominant. The inertia comes from a vast tsunami of mostly uncoordinated sources working together to keep D&D dominant.

Older gamers like me, for instance. I grew up on D&D. I prop it up in my own way, whether always intentionally or not. I just love D&D and refer to it often.

Again, just wait for us olds to die off. It'll be way easier for other games to take off when we're gone.

I should warn you, though. I eat pretty well and take care of myself. Might be around a while.

 

[Reynard]

Did I say anything about it being "better"? Better is in the eye of the beholder. Matt has stated that they decided to use D&D instead of PF because 5e was better for streaming because of it's relative simplicity. Having looked into PF, that simplicity also made 5e a better game for me.

You said.

Almost all versions of D&D after the 80s boom and previous to 5e had an initial spike in sales followed by a drop-off. The devs for 5e thought they were working on a final version of the game just to keep the IP alive. The years of growth with are a major change to the pattern of boom and flattening or falling sales.

Inertia may have a lot to do with that initial growth, it doesn't sustain it. But even if it is a major factor, so what? A lot of brands that were once dominant slowly sank into obscurity.

What, then, do you think sustained 5E?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

My point was that D&D is not inherently better than 80% of other games on the market and its brand does more to keep it dominant than its system.

This may be true, but I think that mechanically it is in the sweet spot for a lot of players and GMs