Candela Obscura Review: Is this even a game???

[@griffithmorgan4966]

You've really put Critical Role under the unforgiving scrutiny of critical analysis in order to show how bad this is. I tried to watch the show years ago, but as someone who works in Film and TV the presentation is so transparent is so many ways, from other players being limited on talk and simply stopping play in order to favor Matt Mercer screen time, to it being obvious what will happen next, that it isn't an RPG at all. Yet, that is fine if others enjoy watching. I can change channels and did. On the other hand, this product seems like such a genius move to generate sales combined with an absolute lack of understanding about fundamental game design principals, that I have to agree with you on this being a great fleecing of CR fans of their cash. It feels like whomever was creating this game was trying to be clever and novel without understanding why they chose to use a different mechanic from the D&D format of roll to hit and roll for damage. Dice pools seem to be the new big thing despite the fact that the concept comes from such games as Strategos: the American Game of War from 1880. The 2nd RPG ever published, Tunnels and Trolls, used dice pools to great effect for simulating combat. It's astounding they would overlook the need for something as common place as combat. Even David Wesely was confronted with the need for a combat system when he ran his first Braunstein game, granted his over all design was already very complex in other ways. Yet, this is a fundamental need in every RPG I can think of where players have complete agency. What you say about the show being faked and the game not being connected to what happens in the show is very telling about what CR has become. I am so glad you wasted your money on getting a copy of this and doing such a deep dive on it, because it means I do not have to. Great show , I Liked and Subscribed - Griff

[@blacklodgegames]

Thank you so much for watching and for the insightful comment.

[@mattblissett1966]

I enjoy CR, not as much as i used to, your insights are acute and informed. The narrative nature of CR had its influence on my game, but its goes up against the idea of agency and it's something i have worked on, to my group's benefit and praise. I have liked and subscribed.

[@blacklodgegames]

@@mattblissett1966 thanks! I also don't want people to misunderstand what we are saying because I think a lot of people conflate "not being narrative focused" with having no in character dialog or roleplay. We actually do a *lot* of that in our games which you can find in the playlists in our channel, but it is done within the context of a sandbox style with no predefined story beats.

[@mattblissett1966]

@@blacklodgegames thank you for clarifying, and i agree with you. I enjoy CR but it has moved on from its gaming origins and its also been a mixed bag of influence on the games

[@blacklodgegames]

@@mattblissett1966 I agree with this as well. I don't think CR is a total negative for the hobby, it is definitely a mixed bag. I think it has warped new players expectations about what RPGs are, but it also shows that there is more to the game than simply moving minis on a grid. And I don't begrudge them their success in the entertainment sphere, they have certainly earned that bag (outside of this product which I think is a bad move from them)

[@Shavinderyt]

I feel much of the conflict with CO is its trying to merge two entirely different system philosophies of Blades in the Dark and Vaesen. It has the dice mechanics of Blades, and the encounter structure of Vaesen. Problem is these are entirely incompatible; Blades book implores GMs not to prepare a heist and go with the complications, while Vaesen wants you to prepare alot with the countdown ticks and catastrophe. For these reasons, Blades has tons of on-the-fly rules to use, while Vaesen by design is rolls-light (book even says you will rarely ever have to roll to achieve things, most things can be found by investigating and exploration). Vaesen does not hide the fact it is narrative driven, because the fun of the game comes from learning about the monsters and seeing the things they do, which cannot always be tied to mechanics. It can be railroad-y because as a GM I want to tick the clock often enough so my players can see the cool things the monster does, but at any point the players should be able to step in and solve the mystery (which is done through non-combat methods most if not all the time). With Blades, It's very much as off-rails as you can get, there is a single goal, and starting point, what fills in the space is entirely up in the air. Its alot more exhilarating and chaotic. This works for Blades because in the setting, if the players were not there, everything would be going according to plan. Heists only last from a few minutes to at most a couple hours in game time, so it makes sense the world reacts to the things they do. I can see why this game exists because I've had the same thoughts of "Vaesen and Blades are both dice pool systems, I wonder if I can combine them", but CO shows me there's a reason they cannot, at least not directly. the only unique thing I see in this system is the gilded dice, which is just added complexity to the Resistance system in Blades.

[@devourlordasmodeus]

It really seems like they would've been better served by making a system agnostic setting book and putting all their creative energy into making a well established an interesting world for people to run any game they want in.

[@andersschmich8600]

Great point!

[@devourlordasmodeus]

@@andersschmich8600 No it isn't

[@andersschmich8600]

@@devourlordasmodeus You disagree with yourself? Lol.

[@devourlordasmodeus]

@@andersschmich8600 yes

[@LordVader1094]

@@devourlordasmodeus Schizochad

[@אהרוןאלמוג-צ2ב]

I must say, this wasn't my experience playing Blades in the Dark (which uses very similar core mechanics- dice pools, resistance rolls, trauma that forces characters to retire after too much was acquired etc.). Granted, this is a very different style of play, but I can attest to getting immersed and even stressed to some degree while playing, even though the whole campaign was 14 sessions and the GM didn't bother with ambient or visual effects. Also, I've seen mostly reactive GM style in games like Dungeon World, Realms of Peril and so on- as long as it keeps the diegetic logic of the world and situation intact and consistent and the GM doesn't run wild with it, it tends to fade into the background, at least in me experience. Now, maybe I'm in the minoriry, but I usually lean towards OSR(ish) games and really enjoy them, these are just another type of game. Different experience, not lesser IMO.

[@JasonTheFavorite]

This is exactly what i came to say. There are more styles than strict simulation and plenty of games that are excellent that aren't. There are plenty of problems with this game, but the core concept isn't one

[@marhawkman303]

@@JasonTheFavorite As Black Lodge lead with, if you're on board for simply playing a character in a story the GM wrote... enh, sure have fun with that, but you're not playing YOUR character.

[@geckothegreene]

100% agree- from reviews I've seen, there absolutely seem to be mechanical issues and design problems with this game, but this review seems to be more a philosophical disagreement with Blades in the Dark Style mechanics, which is a perfectly fine personal opinion to have, but not a real basis for an objective game review. The Forged in the Dark Game system has a proven track record of working and being fun to play as a TTRPG system, so time has shown this mechanical style can work, and even become a table favoirite. One thing worth noting, these type of systems are very specially designed for mission or heist based gameplay, which makes them a very strange choice of "inspiration" for a narrative or investigative game system like Candle Obscura. This combined with what feels like some actual misunderstandings about the system they are cribbing from (CO's "mixed successes" compared to BitD's "success with a consequence" on results of 4 or 5 seem very similar in theory, but in practice would be very different in terms of story velocity and the framework the GM would be working within to adjudicate roles) might explain why CO seems "off" compared to the systems it is pulling mechanical inspiration from.

[@אהרוןאלמוג-צ2ב]

@@marhawkman303 don't mean to barge onto your discussion, just want to note that it very much wasn't like that in every Blades game I've played. Players have very powerful tools to exert their influence on the world, the onus is definitely on them. GM mostly offers hooks, rumors and optional quests and referees what happens. Players decide what to do, how to approach it, even what attributes to use for trying (although picking a non optimal one could reduce the effect of the action, even if completely successful). Even if the GM wants to tell a story, he doesn't have *complete* control as long as the players have the ability to take stress.

[@marhawkman303]

@@geckothegreene I think he made a good point about the rules being incomplete though. Yes, to some extent as a GM you NEED to improvise. No rule set can cover every possible contingency. but this one seems to skip a lot of basic stuff.

[@jacobbrown9894]

See not having PVP isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like I'm a huge Pathfinder 2E fan and it directly calls out that PVP shouldn't happen...but also it has a fully fleshed out combat system so if it does pop up then you can just roll it that way. Meanwhile here they outright had PVP pop up in testing in a system where realistically possession by like ghosts or demons and mindbreaking from eldritch sources should be VERY common and went "Hmmm no reason to make rules."

[@blacklodgegames]

Completely correct.

[@theeyewizard8288]

PVP maybe shouldn't happen, but the fact it CAN happen prevents stupid actions from the characters. Less murderhobo behaviors if they face the consequences of their doings. Being it from the NPCs OR/AND the other PCs. If PCs have a common goal and the stupid character's actions can lead to a TPK, other PCs SHOULD oppose a resistance (IN GAME, not preemptively with safety tool session zero consent form). That's the only way for the Player to understand why and how it's beneficial for himself to become a better player.

[@KillerAceUSAF]

if you're in a good group, PVP can be a great device to have characters grow and evolve.

[@bsgnerd]

@@KillerAceUSAFI respectfully disagree. If a thief states they attack the teams warrior and then says, “the warrior then nearly beats my thief to death.” That is RP growth. But I have never seen or heard of a pvp situation where the instigator doesn’t want to “win.” PvP is frowned on because the motivations for it are so often friction and power dynamics between the players. Not between the characters and thus the term “player v player.”

[@KillerAceUSAF]

@@bsgnerd Must be just my group, all of our PvP has never really been player v player, but character v character. Had one fight between my Warpriest and the new Fighter in the party because we wanted to test each others mettle and see if we can trust each other. Had another one where it was the Druid and the Wizard over a disagreement that I don't remember. I've never had a PvP like you describe.

[@Darklight689]

Reminds me of a game I bought years ago, that was missing rules and I was just told by the devs to fill in the blanks. This isn’t why I paid 60 bucks to write my own rules

[@blacklodgegames]

Exactly. Complete rip off.

[@Shooshpa-z2e]

My guess is that Matt Mercer started designing this for himself and then someone said „hey, we can milk money from this!“. Everything about this screams Mercer and he has shown time and time again that he works better with less restrictions, but unfortunately not every dnd gm is Matt. I think I’ll try playing it with my friends, but we will probably just download the rules from the internet.

[@robkoper841]

8:37 The reason PvP isn't in the game is because for a lot of the player base, and especially the demographic that is a fan of CR, PvP is seen as a distasteful relic of the cringey past. Even addressing it within the rules of a self-described 'collaborative storytelling exercise' would be admitting that sometimes, the story involves two protagonists going at it. And creating rules for such a thing is tacit approval of it. That part is a Feature, not a Bug. The heart of the problem with Candela as a ruleset: they are selling a setting, the rules are an afterthought. The rules are a pastiche of Blades in the Dark, PbtA, and Savage Worlds. That's not to say these rules couldn't work: those three games happen to be my favorite systems, and two of the three creators are fine - even encourage - people to use their ideas. Those three games work well as they are made, but the what the author of Candela did is take parts from three beautiful sports cars and build something that looks like a sports car out of them. It's the shell of a game system, used to sell a setting.

[@blacklodgegames]

And the setting is also a broken uninteresting mess.

[@mightystu49]

A great point you make that I feel has been muddied by actual plays and other "all sizzle, no bacon" games and systems: good stories emerge from roleplaying, but roleplaying games do not exist to tell stories. The fun stories are not from what plot you prewrote, it's how situations emerged organically. Prep situations, not plots is the best advice a GM can get. Even other horror investigation games do this: CoC is much more about creating scenarios to investigate that basically have what the bad guys are doing on a timeline and things change based on what the players do, but if they don't do anything about it then yeah, bad shit goes down. The core thing to remember: they are called RPGs. The core of what they are is games, roleplaying is a modifier to the noun of game. Game is not the modifier to roleplay.

[@Fenikkusu14]

Wow, incredibly well said. I'm gonna copy this and stick in my notes. As a newer DM the whole story and plot issue has really felt like my biggest hurdle

[@KyleStoeckig]

Thank you for your willingness to critique a CR product. There are many reviewers that have openly said that if they do not like a thing then they will just refuse to review it. That is not helpful to the community. The TTRPG space needs both positive and negative feedback in order to grow and become better.

[@blacklodgegames]

Very much agree and happy to do it!

[@NothingKingKN]

This game really feels like one of those "Pretend Games" that star in movies that then get adapted into an actual game.

[@crapphone7744]

This should be a board game. It sounds like it already is. It might actually be a good board game, especially if each character has conflicting victory conditions, but must also cooperate to win. When you add or withold help? Could be a great game that could destroy friendships and have cliffhanger endings.

[@legionarybooks13]

That's a fair point. As a board game, this could actually be really cool. As a TTRPG, it is complete sh!t. Which is really too bad, because the initial concept sounded cool.

[@0num4]

That's my conclusion as well. When you put a TTRPG on rails, it becomes more akin to a board game than anything else. There are times where rails are a tool for a GM to use to get the players corralled into where things need to go (or at least away from where they really need to avoid), but this is a tool best used with discretion, not as a building block for an entire system.

[@blacklodgegames]

There are good alternatives. Check out Wretched Epoque from The Red Room.

[@ScottBecker-z3m]

Your review actually shines a bright light on how the latest generation of ttrpg "players" just doesn't understand ttrpgs. They want to take all the actual "game" aspects out and strip the gm of agency so all the players can play pretend and feed their narcissisism. Basically, this game is trying to turn an acting class into a ttrpg. Dreck.

[@Lostforface]

Thats one of my first thoughts. It plays a lot like Eldrich/Arkham horror games.

[@jumptrash]

i love CR, but they really missed with this one. Glad to see people actually giving feedback instead of just letting it slide. The best thing we can do for the TTRPG community is to discuss what works and what doesnt. Great video!

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks! More to come soon.

[@NightDangerRPG]

Everything I see here is a game that takes Blades in the Dark and carves out all the mechanical crunch that makes Blades work as an actual game. Where Blades has explicit conditions and triggers for almost all variables that could occur, this game seems to handwave it. Its like someone read the Blades manual 5 years ago and made something up on the spot based on their memory

[@afoaa]

Exactly! Blades is extremely sandboxy, brutal, and precise with player agenda being the central element of the game. CO somehow lost all that.

[@ViscountGaming-oe2df]

I actually did compare this game to both Veasen and Call of Cthulhu. I feel like this is very much a watered down version of Veasen, but your breakdown makes it sound less watered down, and more like a membrane of a game. And to think, they made a game system without a failure system. This is something that is already a problem in 5e (which is basically a golden age super hero simulator). A game of this such, that is low magic and inquisitive design, should have the basics of combat, risk, failure and success. So I appreciate this breakdown and if I ever end up running this game system, I'll have my red marker ready.

[@irrevenant3]

_"they made a game system without a failure system."_ What do you mean by this bit?

[@MannyBrum]

Back in 2004 we had a little game called World of Warcraft and everyone loved it and it got hugely popular, and the more popular it got the more people started to complain that the game was too hard. So the company that made it started to remove any sense of danger from the game, and made everything so accessible it felt like there was no sense of achievement for doing anything anymore. Not only did the people who enjoyed the original game start to leave it, but the people who complained about the game started to leave too because they were no longer having fun. Then in 2019 they rereleased the original version of the game and today there are more people playing it than those on the regular servers. The same thing happened or is happening with D&D. They got a surge in popularity and a lot of people who didn't understand why the rules were there came in and started complaining, WotC started to think they needed to change the rules, and other companies tried to make simpler games to capitalize on the dissatisfaction. I think once people are playing these games that give them what they think they want they'll appreciate the traditional systems more. So, while this is a bad game, I think it is a necessary step towards people realizing why TTRPGs tend to all follow the same basic framework and people don't really want a game that is just made up 100%. Also, this game is marketed squarely to the people who are doing the loud complaining- the people whose first experience with TTRPGs was watching some professional voice actors play a game and who blame the ruleset for their home game not feeling like that.

[@Iridium-77-g]

You also forgot all the finger waggling about not "gamifying" mental illness, while the book happily "gamefies" physical deformity and mutilation. Excellent review on the game and what CR is about. You earned that Sub.

[@NotATraveller]

I really like the point about how RPGs are not about "telling stories" or discovering the story after the fact by looking back at the game as opposed to playing in out during the campaign. I wonder if that is part of the reason why Curse of Strahd is such a loved 5e adventure because there is no real set path through it and the players have to make their own logical way through it.

[@blacklodgegames]

The key to both fun *and* interesting stories (after the fact as you say) in RPGs is that the characters have actual agency in the game. Their choices have no meaning if the GM is trying to hit certain beats and guiding them in a pre planned plot. A good GM creates a good initial premise (or set of premises), the rest grows directly out of play and what the characters actually decide to do. I don't know why people are so hostile to this idea.

[@NotATraveller]

@@blacklodgegames Couldn't agree more. It seems so obvious now but it doesn't seem to be the common way people think, unfortunately. I've always thought it but couldn't nail it down, but you've articulated it great here. Fair play. Looking forward to watching some more of your content to learn more about this 👍

[@blacklodgegames]

@@NotATraveller awesome, we've got a lot more coming. There is a great playlist on vampire the Masquerade on the channel if you are interested in that game.

[@blackpawlo]

To treat ttrpg as way for GM to tell """"STORY"""" is worst thing that ever happened to our hobby. Newbies think railroading and scripted events that players can't affect are norm

[@blacklodgegames]

It's really unfortunate.

[@andersand6576]

It can be very useful when writing a script for a movie, to give characters their own voice. That does not mean it is fun, but most things have their place.

[@nomindseye]

Depends where are you drawing the line for "story". If you mean story, as in "pre-written plot", that's a plague that's been part of the TTRPG scene since it truly divorced itself from the tactical war games. I am sure everyone has been in part of a group, or been the GM who has a a plot in their mind and resents players who are are not doing what he thought they should be doing. Railroading. However if you mean story, as in the distribution of the GM's responsibilities to the players in different ways, I'd call that an innovation. Not really an innovation that I personally enjoy that much, but it's quite interesting twist. At least in theory, most tables can't handle it.

[@ubcroel4022]

Yeah, critical rolltards is terrible.

[@szymonlechdzieciol]

@@nomindseye well there is also aspect of storygaming when it's not as much that GM power are dispensed (though in school of playing RAW GM by law has no right to negate correctly used player ability or move, and is obliged to wrap fiction around result) - but more than game structures and how various abilities move together are meant to emulate style climate and dynamics of some genre of fiction - that's why unlike traditional skill checks - using moves or Blades abilities automatically triggers something moving fiction forward.

[@daffy72]

Maybe instead of worrying so much about that set and those costumes they should have given more thought about the product they are trying to sell. They should have just made a steampunk hybrid version of pathfinder/starfinder and released it in conjunction with them to boost interest in it using their name.

[@DeadMarsh]

This was a great review. Honest, insightful, and genuine. That’s a rare thing-where today there are so many KZbin ttrpg influencers who essentially are just circle jerk promoting each other even if it means sucking up to Corporate Wotc, critical role, and who ever else will gain them more popularity…even if that means towing the line of gimmicky crap systems.

[@hawkname1234]

Most of them are trying to sell you their own stuff. I'm sure it's a coincidence that they also make up reasons to be mad at their biggest competitor.

[@BigSlimyBlob]

I like rules-light systems (Barbarians of Lemuria is my favorite) so I was surprised when I didn't like the Candela Obscura system at all. I thought I understood why I didn't like it, but you articulated some thoughts that I hadn't fully realized. They managed to make some interesting stories out of it during their playtesting, but I think that speaks more to their improvisation and storytelling abilities than to the system itself. I think they did it in spite of the system, not because of it.

[@blacklodgegames]

Yeah, they are professional entertainers so they are capable of making fun stories to watch. They don't need a game system to do that though, it's literally been their careers to play fun and interesting characters for an audience. Glad we could help articulate what you knew intuitively after reading the game!

[@kdolo1887]

There's nothing particularly compelling about the stories on CR. What's compelling is the performances, which admittedly goes quite far. But that will never be the experience at a table not populated by actors.

[@matt00041]

I saw how the Reddit community attacked you for this review and decided to watch it. Now, I'm going to go through your entire back catalog. I don't know how you got Reddit to advertise for you, but well done.

[@blacklodgegames]

Lol right, I was like wow they really make us sound awesome

[@jonivirolainen4751]

Based on quickstart rules and watching the show, Candela Obscura is really close to Blades in the Dark mechanically. BitD in turn is heavily influenced by Apocalypse World (and it's derivatives). Funny thing is that from all the way from original Apocalypse World there are no rules for how to handle PvP situations. Not that I aim for those situations, but especially in AW and BitD where it is genre realistic (post apoc and crime stories respectively) for even friends to turn enemies so it was kind of odd that these potential situations were passed with similar manner "you're on your own". So, in a way, all of that comes from pretty long time ago from a pretty old game system (that is quite widely used in various forms). Same applies to how damage is dealt, especially in BitD as it is almost the same. Although I have to say that I like the scar mechanic in CO as it provides a mechanical way for character development (and I don't mean this as a way to "level up"). There were quite a bit of GM or the whole group filling in the gaps in how to use the whole ruleset in the BitD as well. In that game it was explained as making the game to suit the playing group. For example how resistance worked and exactly how bad a damage the opponent dealt. It fels a bit lazy but I can also appreciate the freedom for groups to finetune the whole experience to suit their group. But yeah, I agree that especially given how long this mechanic has been around, developers could (and should) have develop the parent system further. But to me it is actually no better or worse than BitD that I have playes a few sessions. The experience is quite different from D&D or some other type of RPGs.

[@Pixie1001.]

I mean, Apocolypse World does actually have pretty extensive PvP rules, and in fact is often played an an almost purely PvP system - most of the moves i nthe game specifically specifiy what happens when used aganst an NPC verus a player. Dungeon World first started the tradition of doing away with them, since narratively PvP shouldn't really be a bit focus of heroic adventuring, so it kinda makes sense that the players should just come to an agreement out of character about how it'd go down. I believe in Blades, the way this is meant to work, is the aggressor makes a roll, and then the player being affected gets to roll resistance against whatever narratively established effect they have - which the players and GM work out together (e.g. How effective would it be if my character pinned you against a wall and demanded they do what I want? Hrmm, well you're a bit bigger than my character, and he's a bit of a craven coward, so pretty effective.) and then the defending player gets to make a resistance roll against that outcome, if there is one. I believe they then get to either choose to go along with the other player, or pay the stress cost after seeing what they rolled. Core blades is obviously not as opptermisitic a setting as this game though, so I kinda understand why they thought it might be easier not to even mention PvP in order to dissuade it. Afterall, once you make it an option on someone's character sheet, you're kinda endorising it, which can sometimes be destructive to the tone the system is trying to impose.

[@jonivirolainen4751]

@@Pixie1001. I loaned out Apocalypse World from my local library so I can't check this out now but for some reason I remember wondering how this would work out if there was a PvP situation. Or maybe these rules were added/clarified in 2nd edition that I have not read? It is possible that it is subtly implied on how to handle PvP situations in the Blades but I have read that book quite extensively (I own it) and that part has eluded me quite successfully :) Perhaps I have to take another look at it.

[@Pixie1001.]

@@jonivirolainen4751 Well, I looked that piece of Blades text up on reddit and was directed to a blog post by John Harper explaining how it's meant to work, so it is totally possible that it isn't in the rules itself. I mostly learned the rules from watching let's plays just then, so I'll admit I've only skimmed the rules pdf myself. Having watched a bit more of the video though, I agree Candela Obscura's response of 'just make it up' is kind of a terrible ruling. I f they don't want their game ot have PvP that's fine, but if that's the case it should include table advise on how to avoid it, and how to instil a cooperative mindset in your players.

[@rbtalley3]

That one of the best laid out, objective arguments I have ever witnessed on KZbin. Thank you. It helped me codify how I feel about the game.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thank you so much! A lot more to come on a lot more games

[@uncouthboy8028]

This game is to roleplaying as the liver king is to health and fitness.

[@rynowatcher]

I do not think player facing roll mechanic is bad; symbaron the gm does not roll dice, the pc's just do saves any time they are attacked for instance. You do not need to have complete sympathety in mechanics to have a functional game. I assumed that was how creatures attacked based upon the quick start rules. You mean to say the opposition cannot act against the pc's at all, though? Setting threat level is a mechanic I like from blades in the dark; it let's players know the social norm of the scene that players often lose because they are "piloting a mech." Ie, a bar room brawl in a tavern in a d&d game versus a lich coming onto the field is the dm setting the stakes; they are just explicitly stated in Blades in the Dark, and I assume Candella Obscura.... at least in the quick start rules they were. The players can escalate; ie, there is a toll booth, so I pull out my gun is a player taking low stakes to high stakes. This is a useful mechanic with metamechanics that the player can spend, like Luck Points, Bennies, or such. The lack of a death mechanic is rather concerning, though. It is a horror game after all.

[@blacklodgegames]

The death mechanic exists, you are just protected from it until you've taken three scars. It also states you can take marks that overflow past one scar, but there is no objective means of determining damage so it is just made up by the GM. It's odd because they say you can have this overflowing damage, but then in the GM section it literally says not to worry about killing your player characters because they are protected by scars. It's just a big poorly thought out mess. BitD is credited in the book at the beginning but from what I understand this is a poor adaptation of that rule set (though the core argument against story gaming still applies to BitD as well).

[@rynowatcher]

@@blacklodgegames from what I read of Scars in the quick start rules, they work like hp in d&d; you are protected from death as long as you have hp and a in 5e the game is designed to have about 3 round combats. The game design is minimalistic, but I read the quick start rules as every source of damage can only do 1 scar if you fail. The strange bit is when you get into narrative non-sense, ie a guy with a gun does one harm but so does a rusty nail as you flee from the monster. To be fair d&d does too: ie, putting a crossbow to a gladiators hear chest and pulling the trigger does not kill them, only does a max of 2d8+5 at most as there are no coup de grace rules in d&d past 3e. Odd design choice for a horror game, though as you are garenteed to last 2 rounds if you start off with no Scars. Blades in the Dark is where they got the die mechanics, but it does not have the fiddly resources and you track an hp like resource to avoid death and it has rules for dying. Highly abstract game, but it actually plays well in practice. You can die in that one and it has fairly clear and concrete rules for dying. Stakes are how the gm determins the damage incurred by the opposition; ie a bar room brawl might end with you losing a tooth but pulling guns out might end in you losing the character. Same opposition, but you are turning this into a lethal fight if you escalate the situation as if you go for your gun, so will the gangster you are fighting who was previously satisfied with just giving you a thumping.

[@violetbliss4399]

For me, I have no issue with CR projects as such; I don't actually think Candela Obscura is a pure cashgrab (of course they also want revenue tho, definitely a factor) but rather a really optimistic theme project pushed by some people and inorganically contracting to throw together a system for it. But whatever the reason, I agree that the product looks really undercooked and it does things I don't like too, but I just don't think CR has this sinister agenda that seems to be prevalent in some corners. I think you lay out your point of view really well in this video and I agree with a lot of the points about CO. Now I'd like to follow this by saying that I also am a much bigger fan of organic character roleplaying when playing myself - which sometimes happens in CR too - and I don't like having a story framework that is predetermined to be followed, personally. I think it's fine to have a theme, i mean what is classic story modules if not something like this, and I've enjoyed some. I hope you forgive my saying this, but I think defining roleplaying in a certain way by preference is a little problematic, just as assuming that it's only a scripted story would be. To me, having free agency is separate to playing a role, but I'm actively going to seek out the former myself, because as you say it's way more interesting to me. It's simply something you and your group has to decide beforehand, is it not? Looking at the comments some, I didn't know CR upset people this much honestly, in how it affects their game. Maybe I've just been lucky with my groups, in not having their type of scripted roleplay? I've been pretty happy with having a broader ttrpg interest, more players to draw from myself - which I feel the recent visibility trend has helped. Though I suppose I can understand if you want it to be a heavily niche experience, any adjacent fame is a detractor to that. No doubt there is a whole slew of new ttrpg players that want to shove and throw people off cliffs, given BG3's success. :D

[@blacklodgegames]

Yeah organic character development through roleplaying is awesome. That can only really happen in a game that is not on the rails or using a prewritten story.

[@KraftyMattKraft]

What I appreciate more than anything else is that you have accepted the nickname that you were given. This is how the best user/nicknames come into being.

[@blacklodgegames]

It was a very creative name and made me laugh a lot. A+ work by Thraxis

[@KraftyMattKraft]

@@blacklodgegames Believe it or not, but the nickname "Krafty Matt" was coined by another podcaster, and it just stuck, and I've been Krafty Matt ever since.

[@devon674]

I appreciated this as well.

[@brandonvaughan4236]

This channel is criminally undersubscribed.

[@blacklodgegames]

So true! Spread the word

[@ATG913]

Great insight and commentary. Subbed. (Here from Diversity & Dragons.)

[@lordmatteus]

Great analysis. Bravo. You should be given a medal for taking the hit and picking up the game so we don't have to. lol

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks! I unfortunately have another video to make about the setting so the slog is not finished.

[@lordmatteus]

@@blacklodgegames Looking forward to it. I like your emphasis on the RP of RPG. Your channel provides a nice balance with those who emphasize the "G" of RPG.

[@emessar]

I don't care for extremely light RPG's because of how much of it you have to make up on the fly. BUT, I also don't think that every game has to be an exact simulation and track every coin, arrow, and torch. Those games can be cool if that's what you're running, but I don't need to know Tony Stark's bank balance to run a superhero game with Iron Man in it. I just need to know he's rich, really rich ... like "fuck-off" rich ...

[@diegotartaglia]

I've been playing FUDGE with player only rolling dice and it's a blast. It's not because the GM doesn't roll for NPCs that they can't act. They do, but if they succeed or not is tied to the players rolling against a set difficulty (varying for each enemy). I've read blades in the dark, but not played it yet, however it seems that the conflict resolution leans toward the same principles I'm using in my FUDGE build. As a GM, not rolling dice (most of the time) is incredibly fun, as you free yourself from that task and can focus on all the other things you have to pay attention to. That said, I see that other issues you brought up may be really troublesome, i just think this aspect could use some clarification: player only rolling doesn't mean NPCs can't act.

[@blacklodgegames]

My thoughts are that if you know the rules by rote, gm rolling doesn't interfere with any other responsibility at the table. When everyone knows the rules of the game, everything just flows no matter which system you are using.

[@diegotartaglia]

@@blacklodgegames fair enough. I used to think the same way. But when assembling the FUDGE build I was going to use for my games, I read in some pbta game that only players rolled and wanted to try it out. Game flows the same, plus you save some time and fiddling at the table, and the "roll in the open vs behind the screen" thing becomes moot. Tbh, it's a non issue. I particularly like the way the game feels, since as a GM I already control so much, I let the players handle the rolls when the characters are engaged with the world and just let the NPCs and other obstacles have a fixed stat as the target number. My point is, it doesn't mean the NPCs can't act.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@diegotartagliaOk so now let's talk about NPC's reaction rolls, when even the DM doesn't know how their NPCs are going to react 😋

[@diegotartaglia]

@@theeyewizard8288 ok, I tell the pcs to give me a charisma check, against a set difficulty based on the NPC bias. Ofc, if there's no PC interaction at all, I do roll at times, for random stuff like the weather or whatever. But i generally let the players roll when it's their PC that will be involved in any way, even when it's an environment or NPC "action".

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@diegotartagliaSo you say you’re only surprised by your players. You know everything about the setting/NPCs they’re in? (Except weather).

[@innocentsmith6091]

The thing that's much more elegant about standard RPGs, besides trust etc, is that any system you create for any activity can be used by any character. Do you want a monster to cast a spell? If its a "players roll everything" system, you need different rules for when the monster casts it than when the player does. There's ways you can make "roll to succeed" and "roll for NPC to fail" be symmetric enough to make them equivalent, but then you're just putting a lot of effort into being D&D without being D&D.

[@blacklodgegames]

Excellent point

[@joshuatellier5803]

But by this very argument, you are expecting a different system to work like D&D when it isn't D&D. You wouldn't try to fix a PDF with white out, you don't play chess with checkers pieces, and you wouldn't try to ski down a hill with a Dirt bike. If you want to play a Player facing game, you learn the rules for that game and play that game, you wouldn't try to D&D-ify it. If you wanted to do things you could do in D&D, you would just play D&D. A player facing game has it's own way of doing things that some people like. Also, contrary to my point above, If you understand a system and what it is capable, it is fairly easy to hack/homebrew any game out there and have "monsters casting spells" etc. You just wouldn't hack a player facing game the same way you'd hack D&D.... cause they are different games...

[@blacklodgegames]

@@joshuatellier5803 that is not what is being argued. Different genres need different rules to simulate them. D&D is not a good system for mech combat or investigative horror. The issue is that narrativist rule sets don't simulate the world of any genre, they seek to ape the rules of literature and cinema. This is a fundamentally different medium and requires a different philosophical foundation when designing the game

[@joshuatellier5803]

​@@blacklodgegames Right... So you agree that it is a fundamentally different type of game... I could just as easily say a "player roll everything" game is more elegant because the same systems are used by every character. Point of fact D&D "characters" don't share the same exact systems. Only npcs use the recharge mechanic for example. And warlocks and other spell casters have different spell slot systems. Clerics can freely choose from any spell on their spell list while sorcerers are limited by spells known. Some spells require saving throws, some require attack rolls, some require dice pools vs hit dice. Your familiarity with the game leads you to believe that those are negligible flavorful differences within a unified system. But I could argue that players use a unified toolset for interacting with in game stimulus, regardless of whatever imaginary obstacle a GM puts in the players way in a player facing system. I could very simply and fairly have a "monster cast a spell" in a player facing game. Its all about your perspective and understanding of the ruleset.

[@joshuatellier5803]

​@@blacklodgegamesIt is also interesting that you use simulate for the systems you seem to like and ape for systems you don't seem to like, even though in reality both styles are trying to do the same thing, simulate or "ape" something. Your bias towards one doesn't make the other a broken game. It just means you don't like it and/or understand it. For example Just because chess doesnt simulate war strategy the same way stratego does, doesnt mean either is a broken or incomplete game. It just means youd rather play one type of simulation over another. And even though both are very outwardly similar (both being games that move pieces around a board approximating troops on a battlefield) you wouldn't say stratego is a bad game because the pieces dont act like chess pieces. Just because DND style games and FITD style games both have players controlling imaginary characters through imaginary scenarios doesnt mean one is a bad game because it doesnt do something the same way your preferred game does.

[@moshtradamus92]

As a relatively new TTRPG player, I could see this immediately in the quick start guide. Glad I passed.

[@blacklodgegames]

Good instincts!

[@StabbeyTheClown]

I agree. Even as someone who had never played even a single session of any TTRPG (at the time), just watching the first episode made it clear that resolving situations was purely a test of how well you can read the GM's mind and guess the intended solution. I've heard enough "bad game experience" horror stories to understand how badly that can go if you just happen to not have a world-class GM running things.

[@hershmergersh6733]

Great video and i had a similar reaction to Candela. Having said that, I run a homebrew system based on Kult with elements of Symbaroum and Blades in the Dark which has only player rolling. I don't know if you've ever played any systems like that but so far it's resulted in sessions that are far more entertaining for my players and far more deadly than systems like 5E. Combat is a lot faster but far more dramatic where missing a roll isn't jus a case of having to wait 10 minutes before you can try again and whiff once more. Failures and partial successes can have grave consequences. So far the Frankenstein system I've put together (that I'm currently reworking to be more cohesive) has produced far more tense, memorable, and entertaining situations than 5E ever managed. However, It's because I chose to go the opposite way to Candela. Damage means something, wounds are debilitating and meaningful, there are no warnings for the stakes of a roll, and there are rules for PVP that work very similar to the standard engagement rules. Candela Obscura is the perfect example of a game made for those who are too soft for anything but the safest of experiences. But then again, looking at their audience, I'm not surprised.

[@blacklodgegames]

Yung Steve Buscemi has run Kult, but I haven't played it or BitD. Blades seems like it still has story gaming weaknesses but from what I understand it has a much more complete system and the combat system actually makes sense.

[@flamezombie1]

One of your best videos yet. You're doing a great service to the small, actual role-play focused community here by pointing out that, in fact, many TTRPGs are not good at roleplaying! Board game mechanics shoved into the game with no real understanding of what they represent for the characters in the world, an inability for the GM to really inflict anything serious onto the players, constant character sheet accounting... it makes me wonder what exactly many people are doing at their home games.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks man, we're trying to reach normal gamers. A lot of them know something is wrong with the games but can't put their finger on it.

[@themlasu]

I completely agree with this assessment of the game. I'll stick with Call of Cthulhu, Delta Green, and Savage Worlds with the Rippers setting. Sadly this and to a lesser degree MCDM's game feels like it's supposed to be a group of friends just sitting around a table and making a collaborative story. Kinda what we did around campfires when I was a kid, except we had marshmallows on sticks instead of an occasional dice roll.

[@MannyNamiro]

Dice are nowhere near as delicious as marshmallows, that's for sure.

[@chastermief839]

I don't get how MCDM RPG falls into the same traps as candela obscura? PCs have HP and they die when the enemies deal enough damage to them to reduce it to 0. monsters also have HP and they die when it goes to 0. everyone gets a turn in combat, everyone can move and take actions to attack eachother or interact with the world. Seems like some pretty clear mechanics for resolution to me? Its not handwavy "narratively satisfying" bullshit like this game is peddling. the emphasis on tactical, grid-based combat is also not really what I think of as the "sitting around a fire telling stories". if anything MCDM RPG is getting flak for too much crunch: people are being (rightfully) wary of the clear 4e d&d influence, and the game is getting pushback on their Negotiation rules for being too complex and game-ified. there's legitimate criticism to be made for "story first" TTRPG design, and there's definitely legitimate criticism to be made about MCDM but they're completely different critiques.

[@themlasu]

​@@chastermief839 First please notice I said to a lesser degree. Is it the hand waving garbage that is candle? No. Now, if you listen to an interview with one of the game designer (James Introcaso) he even says they did away with the "to hit" roll and all you do is roll damage when it's your turn. This was done for the sake of heroic cinematic. There is more but as I listened to the interview I lost all interest in it. To sume it up, it basically sounded like a very rules light 5E with no to hit roll. Now can things change? Yup, but it's still removing challenges for the sake of cinematics.

[@puppiesgoesrawr]

I'm so glad that you emphasize the fun and immersion that can be found in roleplaying games. The lack of fun and immersion are why I left so many 'rules light' tables, where the group are intent on doing an improv session rather than play a game. I think it's a disservice to players when the GM are more concerned about 'telling a story' than actually running a game. More often than not, it leads to confined gameplay, and subject to railroalding/metagaming by both players and GMs. Those things takes me out of immersion more than the 'boring' parts of a game (like tracking supplies or planning game actions) ever could. Having a good foundation of rules and sticking to them builds trust and allows player agency & creativity. For one, as a player I can rest easy knowing that the GM and players are bound by the same rules I'm following. I don't have to worry about the GM determining my actions before I roll the dice because the rules stops them. As a player, I can use the boundaries of the game's rule to be creative with my game actions and character concepts. In those cases, my choices actually matters, and they're all the more precious because I've somehow 'out think' the rules without actually breaking them. The emotions I feel from victories and defeats are genuine, because they're not pre-planned according to some character arc or contrived plot the GM are pushing onto me. Playing an RPG is not putting on a show, nor is it an improv session. It's playing a game, and lately, I feel like people who gets into the hobby through mainstream shows aren't interested in playing a game. They rather play act something they see on youtube and gets disappointed when their playgroup don't match up to the media product that they consume. It's disheartening, because TTRPG can create it's own kind of magic if people let it.

[@theeyewizard8288]

YES

[@Sorain1]

That trust is why I and my fellow players set up the 'house rule document' so that anything that came up and needed a ruling for a campaign would get one, and from then on that was how it worked. Be it hard corners or people combining weak telekinesis effects, any time something became a rules question the result would be on the document so that it would be fair. The one time that I can recall that needed to be changed was when between secessions one of the players realized an utterly game breaking combination and told the DM about it well before the next meeting, so it could be fixed. Thus the next meeting opened with "So, this house rule is getting changed because otherwise X is going to happen in both directions and we all agree that's not going to be fun, right?" Didn't take more than two minutes to agree to swap it from the way it worked (it was a LoS of clouds having hard/soft corners situation) before to the other way. Because while that ruling worked in the moment, it was a long term problem.

[@MannyNamiro]

This is a very well put together video. I especially liked the section about "telling stories." Also, 18:38 is a hundred percent correct statement. I have memories from my homegames that feel like I've actually lived through them myself.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks! More to come soon.

[@BenA718]

I thorough enjoyed this analysis, and generally agree with your take away, tho I think there could have been more effort put into contextualizing Candela's system, as FitD is very procedural in a board-gamey way vs a more simulationist RPG. For a young channel you have clearly put a lot of effort in stating your arguments well. Personal request: you really need to have a content warning up front for the amount of graphic images displayed. Or don't use them at all, I found it very distracting, personally. Am interested to see where the channel goes from here.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks for watching!

[@SlayerOfWorlds]

I like how you focused strictly on mechanics and how central they are to good rpg. Very well thought out. you earned my subscribe.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks! We are going to talk about the setting in the new year as well, but the mechanics were so bad in this game it needed its own video.

[@Maximum_Goat]

I have no particular interest in Candela Obscura, but I think you're judging it by the wrong metrics. These sorts of games are geared more towards collaborative storytelling rather than a crunchy, structured play session. Some popular examples of this are the "Powered by the Apocalypse" system (Dungeon World, Spirit of 77, etc...) and Blades in the the Dark, which I understand heavily influenced the Candela Obscura game design. I haven't found these systems to be great for an extended campaign, but they work great as an entertaining sandbox for a short "beer and pretzels" adventure arc. I would recommend that you give running a Dungeon World game a shot, starting out your adventure just as the rule book recommends. A little back and forth with player group to flesh out character relationships and create the world, a simple and open "in media res" start, then watch what happens. It is a lot more fun that you might expect. These systems will never be great for a Tomb of Annihilation style slog, but they excel at doing cinematic one-offs where every player gets to have a heroic spotlight. They're an episode of "The A-Team", not "Game of Thrones". Both can be fun.

[@blacklodgegames]

We take the games and the hobby seriously and want other people to do the same because it's extremely rewarding. These systems undercut the unique experience of RPGs and that is not something I want others to tolerate. I'm also not a D&D guy at all, just used it as an example to make the point. You can check some of our live plays on this channel from the last 10 years and see that we do a lot of in character roleplay and our games end up having interesting stories, but they have those precisely *because* we are playing actual roleplaying games and *not* putting story first. Storytelling games out the cart before the horse.

[@drewbryk]

had the same reaction - aren't there tons of games that only consist of reacting to player actions with no true "NPC" that can act independently?

[@julius9055]

@@blacklodgegames "These systems undercut the unique experience of RPGs" What on earth does this mean? RPGs of the style you seem to prefer are the dominant form and only growing. How do people enjoying playing CO undercut DnD or other RPGs?

[@DiomedesRangue]

Good critique! The only thing I would disagree with is that the players and the GM should be playing by the same rules. I'm not sure that this is true. I think you can have asymmetric gameplay in roleplaying games. One of my least favourite things in games is when the monster stat block tells me that this monster has spells A-F, and then I need to reference that separately. This is done for symmetry in gameplay and I think it makes the game worse.

[@philistineau]

Agreed. There’s more freedom to break the rules. But you still have the rules to break.

[@theeyewizard8288]

Spells and SP should be detailed in the statbloc. Problem easily solved.

[@DiomedesRangue]

@@theeyewizard8288 It goes beyond that though. The NPC does not need a full list of attributes. It just need a Bonus and an AC. Things like that are so prevalent in RPGs and it just needs to go.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@DiomedesRangue I run DCC. Each monster is unique so no metagaming by players learning from the monster manual. Mystery is preserved. SP is detailed in the statbloc.

[@glueboy]

1st off, I gotta give cudos to the fact you are one of the few reviews that actually break down the rules and explain what parts you have issues with. Surprisingly thats a little too much to ask for from other reviews so good on ya. Though I gotta completely disagree with the summary about how ttrpgs create stories. A lot of this does sound like conflating personal taste at your own table to the quality of the game. For a personal review? Totally valid. A video like this serves to be your opinion delivered honestly to your audience. An audience that most likely agrees with your point of view. I just don't like trying to define stories in ttrpgs like this. At least in my eyes, the "point" of an rpg is for everyone present at a given table is having fun with the game. Thats not saying fun in the idea of making goofy funny and dumb games, but just tailored to our idea of fun. Which for my group its to tell a gripping story, be the stories personal character driven ones or built for the GM's larger plot in mind. And thats the best part of it! Everyone has a different outlook on what they want out of this cool genre of media. We all love it in different ways. So trying to lock it down and define it all feels really pointless. The other part I really take issue in is the wholesale write off of telling a linear story. The stated intention of Candela Obscura is for shorter campaigns that might just last a couple sessions. For games made like that, having an open world style game doesnt work. The game isnt suited for long term character progression. If that is something you personally dont like thats totally fine btw. I have no clue if it is your intention but from this one video I have seen from you it really sounds like the only form of ttrpg that you think is valid are large open world games where the characters have free reign to do whatever they want. Those games are fun, I'm currently in one of those games and have been for a long time. But other styles of game can exist and are fine? The taste and skill level of GM's is wide and varied. That type of game is difficult to run for many people, so they could lean into more of a linear style game that still allows for player freedom. As long as people are having fun with it who really cares if it can be defined as a "game" or not? I imagine this might be just long and rambling but I hope what I am saying makes sense here. Even as someone who is interested in playing CO with my table I think this is a solid review. Its clear you actually understand the game and are using that to critique it. Which again, is better than many other reviews I have seen. I just disagree with trying to quantify and define what I see is the human experience in tabletop where everyone has different tastes, preferences, and methods of fun. To a more rules crunch and gamer focused player, I can see why CO is off-putting. To a narrative player like myself, the point of CO being a book to create my own narrative experience sounds great.

[@theeyewizard8288]

Yup, Storygamers storygaming storygames and defining themselves as such would be WAY MORE handy for everyone to know if one wants to join or not from the get-go. Think about the newcomers and this mess.

[@glueboy]

@@theeyewizard8288 People need to be very specific on what style of game they run when trying to pull somebody into their game, especially for new tabletop players. And new players need to attentive to figuring out the style of play before joining a game. Just like I wouldnt join a pure dungeon diving game, I dont expect full combat players to want to join my narrative heavy game of VtM lol.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@glueboythe game is about what characters decide to do. No more no less. Nobody forcing them to delve into dungeons or explore the wilderness or mess with the affairs of the guild.

[@glueboy]

@@theeyewizard8288 Some games are though? Every table is different and has different games they want to play. I'm talking from experience here. I've personally been invited to games that have been described as pure combat and dungeon delving like Diablo. The other players liked the game but I didnt join since that sounded really unfun to me. There is no objective way to play a ttrpg. There might be playstyles that we personally don't like but it doesnt mean others cant find value in those types of play.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@glueboythe purpose of RPG is playing Characters free to attempt what they want. It’s not about doing what the referee tells you to do. Total Character Agency. No compromise.

[@MrToastOmnomnom]

"Do you think he is a light keeper now?" had me rolling

[@blacklodgegames]

Yeah we lold at that for like ten minutes in editing

[@Decado1628]

@@blacklodgegames What movie is that clip from?

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@Decado1628 Barbarian (2022)

[@BlackJack-kv3ck]

This honestly has me worried about their other game "Dagger heart" because this one was smaller in name and in closeness to Critical role's campaigns, and still failed to deliver. The designer is the same person and I worry that just as he decided to not make combat rules basically because " I don't want it to be combat" it makes me think Dagger heart will have similar problems. Where the system is just the designers likes and type of game he likes to play, not really an all encompassing system for all audiences of the genere

[@alexholker1309]

This sounds like half of a board game and not an RPG, where the abstract combat rules would be pitted against a deck of well-defined challenges with well defined victory conditions and not the DM's attempts to eyeball each.

[@gregoryspurgeon8974]

Excellent video. This and the one before it have earned my enthusiastic subscription. You are helping to crystallize for me what is special about this hobby, and how to foster it.

[@blacklodgegames]

That's awesome man, we really love hearing stuff like this. Lot's more to come soon.

[@4saken404]

Wow I never thought I would hear the best and most concise description of what an RPG is on a video ragging on Candela Obscura. But you are 100% spot on the mark. I've been running RPGs for 40 years and never heard it put so succinctly. In fact I've been working on my own game and would love to have some direct quotes from this in the forward or GM's section. Top notch! Instant subscriber!

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks! Feel free to quote

[@SharkyShocker]

What I've loved in my long time of watching CR is everyone at the table, having a good time, wondering "What could possibly happen next?!?". This, coupled with some of the more dramatic and serious moments in contrast, made/makes it such a fun ride... But Candela completely misses that. I don't want to watch a 4 hour video where half of it is backstory/talking, while the other half is action that has no real mystery to it due to an exceedingly simplified system that is railroaded to the extreme. It's just improvisation, with stakes that are in complete control at every point.

[@AccessAccess]

It sounds like marketing at its finest. "Don't sell the product, sell the dream".

[@crapphone7744]

Seems to me that in horror games PVP is forseeable in many situations. When Carl Stanford posseses you and has you attack your buddy, you're gonna have PVP. On the other side of it though you could look at this as a very OSR way of doing things, rulings not rules. That can work if you have good role players and a good GM. But if you don't.... That's IRL horror.

[@Sensorium19]

Please take this as just my opinion as someone who identifies with the OSR space. I think rulings-not-rules is too easily used to cover for poor design. The best version of that sentiment, to me, is having a clear simple mechanic that can be adapted to a wide variety of edge cases, which is often necessary in any game. In B/X D&D that would usually be a d20 roll that mimics a saving throw or an attack roll vs a target number, or a flat X-in-6 chance. Those are well established as general resolution mechanics with lots of examples of different kinds of conflict, whether detecting a trap, forcing a door open, etc., etc. The complete absence of a mechanic for a common in-game conflict type is completely foreign to me.

[@Bogzombie308]

I just found your channel thanks to ol Diversity and Dragons video on Candela. I am highly impressed. I can't wait to watch your next video. Great work.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks! Lot's more to come.

[@theredeft5319]

If you wanna play a darker ttrpg world, you can just grab one of the World of darkness books. Vampire, werewolf, mage, hunters, there is plenty to chose from. Just starting a werewolf 5e game and the way to build one’s characters I think is setup very nicely as well as doing a nice session 0 to make sure everyone is on the same page and agrees on what tenets their chronicle should follow.

[@Talliesyn]

don't get me wrong Matt and his team did a lot of good to the rpg hobby. But everyone gotta realise they are professional voice actors. Realistically no session will be the cinematic experience they are selling you.

[@theeyewizard8288]

Selling wrong expectations (which are just lies, they don't play RPG for real) is a GOOD thing for the RPG hobby? Is it what you're saying? What DM would want a CR fanboy at his table? Do you know any?

[@boomerkobold3943]

@@theeyewizard8288i certainly don’t want any.

[@flameknightdragon]

@@theeyewizard8288 it is funny since cr fans are the ones that get kicked from groups or show in horror story threads.

[@kirishima2370]

@@theeyewizard8288 I think CR have done some good in bringing people into or back to the hobby. I had a break of over ten years until I watched CR during the Covid lockdown, that introduced me to Roll20 and then online RPGing (which I'd previously thought a really bad idea) and ultimately the formation of a group that still plays today. But yes, woke craziness is to be terminated in all instances, I agree with that.

[@Demonskunk]

From the things I've seen and heard about this game, it's not well designed. However, I think you are talking from a point of false authority based on your own preferences for tabletop roleplaying games. In a system where the GM doesn't roll dice, the world can still act on the players, but it takes a different form. Instead of "The guard attacks you" *the gm rolls dice*, it's "The guard prepares to strike, what do you want to do?" "I want to try to avoid the blow" "Roll to dodge" *player rolls dice*. Narrative games with discussed cooperative storytelling are not 'bad', they're not different. Knowing the odds of success or failure and spending resources to impact that success or failure is not 'bad', it allows the player to make more informed decisions about spending resources with the knowledge that there could be other things to spend the resources on later in the game that they could need these resources on.

[@blacklodgegames]

It *is* bad because it destroys the experience of immersion. You are robbing yourself of something great by using systems like this.

[@Somerandomjingleberry]

@@blacklodgegamesit seems a bit presumptuous to say that a game that doesn’t necessarily account for every little possible thing and is a complete and total sandbox ‘destroys player immersion’. Immersion can come from a variety of things, and as long as everyone’s wants and expectations at the table are accounted for who cares? I’m not gonna try to “break the system” to do something unconventional if what unconventional thing I would be doing isn’t even something I’m coming to the table for anyway. I still agree that CO sure seems sloppy and incomplete at best, but I think any system that allows people to have fun together is a good one and you’re kind of assuming that every player is the same in this approach to ttrpg design philosophy, that everyone’s ‘immersion will be broken’ if they don’t have absolute sandbox freedom at all times forever. Of course I’m not dissing games that DO have that, they’re very cool, just… y’know what I’m trying to say?

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@Somerandomjingleberry That Storygames while being a distinct type of games can be interesting for what they are? Maybe. As they take the same amount of ressources to occur (time, gathering players etc…) I prefer TTRPG personally, and persistent ongoing open-ended campaign over one-shots (for the same reason). Life is short, let’s prioritize.

[@Somerandomjingleberry]

@@theeyewizard8288 Actually y'know what the distinction of a 'storygame' and a 'ttrpg' in that sense might actually go hard. I might choose different terminology than this but the idea of the distinction itself is pretty good. A good 'storygame' example that comes to my mind under this categorization is the game Ten Candles. The ending (the extinguishing of the titular candles and the Last Stand of all the characters) is completely set in stone and every player knows this going in as that's sort of "the point" of the game; it's a tale of the end of the world and the futile struggles of sparse survivors. The reviews for the game give it a lot of praise, extolling how despite (or perhaps because of) the set in stone nature of the story combined with the kind of roleplay the game is designed to bring out, it has moved people to utter tears of despair and empathy and you get it, but the things you mention about 'storygames' are very present, it being exclusively a one shot deal and all. Though I do still stand by the idea that we shouldn't rank one of these mediums as "better" or more "high priority" than another, as every game table's wants and needs is gonna be different anyway

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@Somerandomjingleberryyep and personally I don’t use the term RPG to define the type of games that I like as, for me, characters agency is the beginning and the end of the immersive experience (not player agency). And I talk about immersion in the fictional world. Not immersion in the act of playing nor immersion in a story. From the point of view of fictional characters there is no story. Fafhrd retains his free will and Newhon is his reality. He doesn’t know he’s stuck on a narrative path. RPG gathering everything from wargame, braunstein to drama improv’, collaborative storytelling, video games, everything, the term itself is void and improper to communicate efficiently.

[@Tablerunner]

10:11 this is such an important distinction. Excellent video and well worth the wait. Looking forward to the next one.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks crispy! More to come.

[@AvatAR42420]

Who thought this was a good idea? A system with no actual rules for combat? Are there no stat blocks at all? I agree, it is not an RPG, it is is the illusion of one as the GM controls scenes to appear like there are resolution mechanics, but it is really "you get as hurt as the GM says you do and the scene resolves when the GM says it does." There are rules for a reason people and don't make a rulebook if you don't want to make a system with rules. It is an acting exercise with vaguely game related props.

[@neron93939]

Why can't the system exist without the rules of combat? After all, there are systems that regulate only combat, but everything else will be as the GM says.

[@Romuluz369]

​@@neron93939 because conflict is the core of all roleplaying games, and physical conflict is the purest form of conflict. Inevitably you will have combat in an RPG, even in RP heavy games. Not having rules for combat makes things feel very arbitrary when the violence starts, which really reduces the agency of players. Without player agency you are basically all sitting around a table while the GM wanks off about his fanfic for a few hours per week.

[@szymonlechdzieciol]

Because it's narrow focus game not game to do everything in the world. In other word you need to buy as player narrow focus and accept it. For me no more unreal than class/level combo honestly.

[@szymonlechdzieciol]

@@Romuluz369 not all of them, just about 93% of them :P

[@Shooshpa-z2e]

I think that it is very obvious that Mercer designed this for himself, but then someone realized that you can milk money from it. I truly do believe that Matt can make this work but unfortunately… I don’t. The game is packed with good ideas but I guess at some point they just stopped because he realized that he, personally, can shine more the less restrained he is.

[@reimannsum9077]

I wonder, based on your framing of the system's core ethos, if you have ever played any of the Powered by the Apocalypse narrative style systems, because, fundamentally, you seem to be approaching this game - whatever its merits or flaws - from a particular prospective that does not take into account that entire sphere of the hobby. The best games - PBtA - are those in which the GM never once rolls the dice, IMO.

[@blacklodgegames]

I am coming from the correct perspective. Narrative style systems are a blight on the hobby and misunderstand what makes these games *truly* amazing and different than any other medium. Simulationism is the correct approach to gaming. Anything less is untenable.

[@catboyuwu5361]

@@blacklodgegames One of my favorite system is City of Mist which is, in it's core, a narrative style system, I feel like there's a misunderstanding about that being rail-roading vs having a system based on narrative developments. I don't think that CO did that right, obviously, but you're discounting a core part of TTRPG games that some enjoy.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@UltraTtrpgernope. Pbta was your introduction to Storygames. And sadly, now you believe the counterpart is brainless Hack&Slash, and that’s a shame 😅. By the way, MCDM is the brainless hack & slash, and is a Storygame as well.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@UltraTtrpgernot hate, just two very different activities. I already said elsewhere but fictional characters don’t know they run through a storyline. In order to approach the game with the character’s mindset, the player need not to know either. It’s suspension of disbelief, immersion. That’s not possible with meta narrative tools at hand.

[@reimannsum9077]

​@@blacklodgegames You're an amusing fellow. I wonder about this aggressive persona that you've constructed for yourself. Do you find that it's been an effective means of generating interest and engagement by targeting the market that has been alienated by the "progressive"/"woke" politics adopted by mainstream companies like WotC?

[@zantharian57]

10:10 - THANK YOU! My god.. these critical role people really need to understand this lesson. Real games are not like their favourite scripted internet TV show.

[@mrmaster9801]

As another post said, we need both positive and negative feedback to improve the ttrpg world and I'm glad you provided the latter. If only good things are spoken of about a game (or only negatives, for what matters), then how could anyone form a reliable opinion of a game? Thinking about the need for both positive and negative feedbacks, however, it came to my mind the more general conclusion that ttrpg needs conflict to prosper. Which is something I feel is very true, but kind of ironic if applied to a game (and probably a popular mindset as well) that basically, from what you say, robs the conflicts from having any meaningful consequence in the world. Is something I've sometimes witnessed when running 5e as well, but I'm not so educated or documented on game design like you to put my thoughts in exact words. My visceral sensation is that, somehow, we have shifted from games where conflict (hence failure) was encouraged, because "you can't win if you don't accept to lose", to games where conflict is described as such only to give you the illusion of having a choice, because now "I want to win without risking to lose". I wonder if this change, if it's vaguely true and not just my sensation, is somehow connected to changes in society. What I know, is that I've stopped running 5e mostly for this reason, picked up Savage Worlds and been happy ever since. Again, thanks for your video and sorry for my wall of text, I hope it makes some sense.

[@gamernerd1717]

Wow so I only heard about the basic mechanic of the dice pool and thought that it sounded like fitd but with a neat little bonus. But now that I hear you expanding on it it just takes out most of the game part. Don't get me wrong there are very cinematic games that exist and feel good (I haven't played but do enjoy the Nobilis system for example) but the fact that the only thing is has is a simple conflict resolution is insane. It feels empty tbh, with no combat and what sounds like a somewhat arbitrary damage it doesn't fit the feel of a ttrpg properly, it does have flavor and what it has could be turned into a board game but it lacks the substance of reaction that is integral to ttrpgs since it wholely revolves around the players.

[@RoadDeerGames]

I think you pointed out an important flaw that is huge for any TTRPG. The show makes a promise of story and that promise creates FOMO in the people that would buy the game and try to play.

[@afoaa]

Funny thing is that the rules are taken from Blades in the Dark which is about as far from railroading as you can get in a TTRPG. The problem is that they have replaced the grim effects of bad rolls to soft cushions, and the precise use of game element to change the odds and severity of events to gm fiat. For example if you pull out a sniper rifle in blades you know how that changes things, but in candela you have a heavy weapon… and you know and all you can see in the rules is that it is heavy…. right. On the other hand having only the players roll for outcomes is a very common method in new rpgs and is nothing special for candela. You see it in games like Kult, Avatar legends, Cypher system and yes blades in the dark. It is not here there is a problem in candela. No the problem is that they forgot to put in a system for npc actions the players has to roll against. In cypher system an opponent will have a list of action, how difficult it is to negate or counter those actions and what happens if you fail to do so, but the gm do not roll any dice. To make candela work you have to create a framework for npc actions and effects of those actions. Having read blades in the dark i would find that easy and probably fun, but for a new beginner gm it is an impossible task.

[@blacklodgegames]

Blades sounds like it still suffers from story gaming nonsense but from what I understand it is a far better system and is actually playable without the GM just making stuff up

[@afoaa]

Actually is has no story gaming at all. Everything happens as a result of player agency, it is extremely sandboxy. One core element of it that you never plan ahead. The book give you ton of base elements as a start and things progress from there. System wise all the stuff with risk levels makes sense because they very preciely tell why things have these levels and what happens on fails, marginal success and full success. It is a very brutal game system where things have consequence. There is a whole chapter of rules for surviving in prison if you,have been caught. There are many meta bord game elements too with maps for control, power and resources for your gang as you spread your power and influense over time. I is basically the opposite of storytelling games, its a sandbox where the only etichal restrictions are what the players decide they are not willing to do to achieve their goals. I bought CO because i heard is was like a blade with occult investigators, but they only managed to use the appeance of the system completely failing to underdtand the core of what made the mechanics work so beautifully in blades. Not sure CO is worth the time it will take to make playable?

[@blacklodgegames]

@@afoaa not it is not worth it. There are plenty of alternatives that have complete systems already *and* better atmosphere and setting. We may take a look at blades some time in the future.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@afoaaplayer agency ≠ character agency

[@afoaa]

@@blacklodgegames Well I don't really have to, I just went and read the basic rules in Blades again, and the huge difference is that they took out the 2nd half of task resulution in CO. In Blades you not only define a risk level, you also define the effectiveness of the action in levels from 0 to 3 or sometimes 4. In combat this is the damage done, in social situation this is the social effect done which is also numbered in the game and so on. For example two persons facing each other with swords will be a risky, effect 2 task, but if you bring out a handgun it will chance to controlled, effect 2, or if you being a machinegun it will become a controlled effect 3, of course if the enemy now use a machine gun on you while you are out in the open the task to avoid damage is desperate, effect 3. Same for social encounter, investigation everything can be handled by one mechanic because it is so flexible. In CO the tasks are meaningless because you only talk about the risk but not the effect in task resolution. Add in the effect mechanics and you are good to go. I think you will like Blades, they actually say that the story in RPG emerges from the unpredictable meeting of actions, rules, and no single person create story. And they stress that it is a sandbox game.

[@ookamigenji-pv2st]

@10:10 wrong. That's a way to play RPGs but that's not what RPGs are. You don't need to treat the world as real. You don't need to think as if you were the character.

[@szymonlechdzieciol]

Correct. Necessity of immersion is... a lie.

[@ookamigenji-pv2st]

@@szymonlechdzieciol even worse: it's definitionally gatekeeping. some people really want RPG to mean a specific thing when the beauty of the genre is how many types of experiences it enables, some of which have nothing with "role play" (in character stuff) and "immersion"

[@BX-advocate]

Thank you for saying these games are not designed to tell story. I am so tired of the story gamers screwing things up.

[@owenbloomfield1177]

It sounds like they should have taken a page from City of Mist and the Powered by the Apocalypse system. Very narrative based, but with a simple yet deceptively deep resolution system.

[@AuthoritativeNewsNetwork]

So the show is barely even a play test of the game? 🤣

[@blacklodgegames]

I can't believe that they admitted it lmao

[@jerichojeudy]

Interesting take on the game and gaming philosophy. I do think there is a midway space between total GM whimsy and total rules simulation. For example, at some tables, the GM might arbitrarily tell the players, after they've been in a dungeon for a good while: "your torch dies out and as you fish another one out of your bag, you realize you are running low. Roll a 1d4 to see how many are left." That kind of play is fairly common. So there is a modicum of "story" and "rythm" that a DM can bring to the table. The players can also do it, by voluntarily reducing certain activities to a die roll and skipping RP to speed up play. They can ask for that and the DM may oblige. The conversation at the table is as much what makes the experience of TTRPGs as the rules. And that conversation is in part collaborative storytelling. Some tables lean into that more than others. Some tables insist on only RPing "what their character would do", but some players actually factor in drama, surprise, reversals and other drama methods into their RP. It comes down to playstyle in the end. I do agree that a game should propose a robust framework in the rulebook and that no holes should be left out. DMs need all the help they can get! And the preferred playstyle the game caters to needs to be part of the rulebook and supported by the rules. You are right in saying the GM musn't be placed in a constant state of having to make arbitrary rulings. That is untenable a position. The rules need to be "neutral ground". They are a big part of the social contract of the game.

[@theeyewizard8288]

Role-Playing Game is about playing the Role of a character. From the character's point of view there is no story (diegetic level). That's not the premise nor the purpose of Storygames like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark. You're constantly given information your character doesn't have. And you base your decisions on them. In a RPG there is no filter between the player and the diegesis at the decision making step = immersion.

[@HoplooWare]

@@theeyewizard8288 My man, RPGs have given players information their characters shouldn't have known since hit points, ability scores, alignment, combat rounds, and so on. Sometimes immersion thru realism is sacrificed for a better game, leading to more immersion overall. Both apocalypse world and Blades are not story games; they are roleplaying games.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@HoplooWare That's why Arneson was keeping the character sheets, was doing all the dice rolls and the players didn't know the rules. To foster immersion. And it gave birth to FKR. OSR serves the same purpose, with a little bit of compromise. The player knows his abilities, but there is no skill system. And his range of actions is informed by his surroundings, at the diegetic level, in first person view mode. From the point of view of the character there is no story. In order to act with the character's mindset, the player suspends his disbelief and ignores it as well. Storygames never makes you forget that it's not a collaborative storytelling exercise. You get tools that your character doesn't have to alter the outcome directly like a deus ex machina. You're not ONLY a character anymore, you're a co-scenarist, co-director, puppeteer.

[@DungeonMasterpiece]

This game is a demonstration of the metaphysic of the Hegelian dialectic.

[@blacklodgegames]

Dialectic deez

[@Absintheskiss]

Ok, I am a critter and big CR fan. HOWEVER I will not be running CO or, from what I have seen so far, Daggerheart either. I have a job, a family and house to sort out so when planning and running RP games I NEED clarity in the rules. I need rules that will help me keep things moving and lesson, not add to, the already massive mental load that running a game. Refs already have to keep a track of what the players are doing, what the enemies/NPS/antagonists/monsters are doing, affects of the party actions in the wider world and keep the players engaged and the thought of having to constantly having to think up consequences for a partially successful dice roll is exhausting. I am actually looking forward to the new MCDM rules as they seem much more comprehensive and clear cut, letting me focus my limited energies on the story of the game.

[@blacklodgegames]

Don't know much about Daggerheart rules yet but Bob world builders overview seems more complete than candela

[@josephcroeniangamer3727]

I honestly fail to see how this is different from plenty of more narrative systems and how the mixed succes stop the world for being alive. Its not my favorite, but this criticism sounds a little like why this is not DnD instead of why the system itself is bad.

[@blacklodgegames]

Yes, the point is that story gaming as such is fundamentally broken. I want people to get the most out of the hobby and games like these diminish the experience.

[@kasplachproductions6198]

⁠@@blacklodgegames Narrative games are fairly popular for a reason, and I doubt many players of PbtA and the like are unaware of more traditional RPG gameplay. They might always be more niche than D&D style games, but calling the entire genre “fundamentally broken” feels like saying “stop having your kind of fun.”

[@blacklodgegames]

@@kasplachproductions6198 Well I'm not particularly interested in what people "feel" about my point but whether they agree with it or not. These games are broken and people are intentionally giving themselves a lesser experience. I find that lame and want them to aspire to something better.

[@kasplachproductions6198]

@@blacklodgegames Saying "these games are broken" isn't gonna convince anyone of anything, especially if you haven't actually played them. FitD games are fun and involve a lot of spontaneous drama. You should give them a try! Anyway that's all I got bye

[@josephcroeniangamer3727]

@@kasplachproductions6198 yeah, i play the ttprpg version of over the garden wall, expecting a totally diferent experience than whit DnD, so i get you. again, not my favorite style, but one worth playing from time to time.

[@Soulessdeeds]

Just listening to the explanation of how the dice system work was enough for my eyes to glaze over. It's overly complicated and convoluted. And honestly just confusing. It's not a game you grab a bunch of new players together and within an hour your rolling dice and having fun. The entire afternoon is spent repeating what exploding the dice means lol.

[@PennyDreadful2024]

I have not read the Candela Obscura rulebook. But seeing as it builds off of blades in the dark, there is in fact a combat system. It is admittingly more subtle so it's easy to miss. But NPCs can take actions. The GM makes a Move as they say in PtbA games. Then the PC may resist consequences or choose a response from they skills, depending on the circumstances. I play BitD and I have been attacked a lot by NPCs.

[@blacklodgegames]

I understand that other PbtA games have a more cohesive system, but this is a poor implementation. Putting that aside, the story gaming philosophy is still incorrect and diminishes the experience at the table.

[@PennyDreadful2024]

@@blacklodgegamesThat is shame. Thanks for putting together such a detailed review.

[@yeager1957]

I knew it would be a mess the second i heard that Spencer Stark was involved. Everything he touches turns into this. It doesn't work for a horror game.

[@kevoreilly6557]

A hit her in the head with the butt if the rifle … I stab him in the neck with my knife … is not how striking at range works This is 8 yes old playing cops and robbers … I shoot you so you’re dead; no I have armor ! Well my billets ignore armor …. Seems like almost a reason RPGs have rules

[@EldradWolfsbane]

Jeez! The most serious video that had me belly laughing! I think you need to stop holding back and say what you really think!😂 New subscriber! Can't wait for more!

[@Red13aron]

This sounds like Apocalypse / Dungeon World. Those systems were equally vague and flat

[@blacklodgegames]

It's apparently a poor copy paste of Blades in the Dark.

[@MrPansophy]

CO works well the way it is written, but it needs a different mind set. I never played DnD and started with Runequest. I enjoy Fate and Powered by the Apocalypse games. Maybe coming from a different RPG system makes it easier to play OC. Personally, our group loves the system and the game and our games are similar to the examples in the book.

[@MaestroOblidemon]

I'm so glad I pirated it. It does cost a lot of money, and for it to be just a bad copy of games like Blades in the Dark or Vaesen would have killed me (of dissapointment). I hate how it tries not to offend anyone and just ends up giving us no content at all. I translated it to try it with friends but before running it I realized there are no tools for the gm, I would be better off just improvising everything.

[@lazydroidproductions1087]

GMed my first time recently, Call of Cthulhu thriller on a train passing alongside a war zone, think one part Murder on the Orient two parts The King in Yellow, who was my main “antagonist” drawn as directly as I could from the original short story collection (so not Hastur, not expanded “Lovecraft mythos”). I very clearly had in my notes act 1 and act 2, but I think it worked because it was both meta-textually and textually formatted like a play, the first act relatively mundane and the second full of horrors and struggle, the King was the director, the train conductor became an orchestra conductor, the staff state-hands and extras, and I did my best to cram as much a stuff as I could into a very limited setting of 9 train cars (locomotive, four sleeper cars, two luggage cars, a dining car, and a salon car)

[@christiangruenwied3780]

This is a very good explanation of what's wrong with the game (at least in your view). I watched another explanation but lost the train of thoughts in too many excuses and pre-written passages. Your video, on the other hand, helped me a lot to understand the critics. Thank you!

[@blacklodgegames]

You're very welcome and thanks for the kind words! There will be a follow up video about the setting in the new year.

[@Eron_the_Relentless]

Incredibly well done, these are the kind of reviews the space needs. Well informed, rational, and unapologetic. I'm your 888th sub.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thank you so much! We really appreciate it. We've got a lot more content to come. Next up is going to be a video on Vampire 5th edition by Young Steve Buscemi

[@greeninferno1339]

@@blacklodgegames910th

[@TheDeliciousMystery]

This just sounds like Free League's Vaesen but worse hoping enough Critical Role fans will buy it due to association alone.

[@blacklodgegames]

They cite veasen as an inspiration

[@dieyng]

It was something I pointed out right after the second Candela Obscura game started. That there was simply no fair way to assess what happens to a character, that it is basically completely arbitrary and just down to the mood the GM has. And was swamped with negative reactions in the comments, all praising Spencer's DMing and how great the game was. Of course, all based on the show and how they interpreted what they saw. Though I have to say, it was clear to many people watching the show, that a game like this can only lead to players feeling unfairly treated and to DMs losing any sense of accountability. I don't really share a lot of your opinions about CR and how they act and what they do, fe. I do not think there was ANY actual attempt to trick anybody. They want to create a good show to watch and from a narrative pov, from the character interactions, it was awesome, even despite the failure of the rules of the game itself. And in the end, you don't hold the book of law about what RPGs are. We all define that for ourselves what we find important and what not and for me personally I find a lot of the rules in systems like Pathfinder are too far into micromanagement and I would never play the game as intended, because it would be too restrictive for the way I GM.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@dieyng In a RPG you're supposed to play a Character. And from the Character's point of view, there is no "Story" as the diegesis is his reality. The resolution system doesn't matter. You're not supposed to take it into consideration at the decision making step. During Blackmoor's Campaign, around 1972, Dave Arneson, co-creator of D&D, was keeping the Characters sheets, was doing all the dice rolls and the players didn't know the rules. To foster Immersion. No meta-gaming possible.

[@jamiebuzick4911]

At a glance it looked like they borrowed heavily from Vaesen. (Free League) in both theme and some mechanics.

[@blacklodgegames]

Yeah they cite veasen as an influence as well as blades in the dark.

[@28mmRPG]

my condolences to your braincells for having to read the rulebook, the sacrifices you have endured...

[@marhawkman303]

He's scarred now * rolls dice* -1 chr +1 wis

[@minecrashinhard]

(edit at the top after second watch and before hitting enter, yep I stand by what i say) Candela Obscura is perfectly capable of generating emersion and role play. People playing a game well are not lying to others about how good their experiences can be. Candela is not D&D but even D&D can be played with a narrative focus and still be legitimate play. and lastly an actual hot take. railroaded games can still be fun. (after second watch) A game doesn't have to be life and death, stressful, with pure emersion. Yours can, and that's valid, but not everyone has to. Also you tapped into a movie with paid professional actors to say YOUR method can create that. After taking shots at critical role for being actors pitching a game. A lack of impact and meaningful choices may kill the game for you but the narrative style is favored by far more people. Just like some people like easy games and others want to spend hours overcoming one level. Critical roles style tripled (conservatively) the player base or role playing games generally and I appreciate that.

[@Somerandomjingleberry]

The way I’d compare it is if you are playing something like a video game, that’s still “scripted” and “railroaded” but you can still have a lot of fun with it. The problem is that if you wanna approach a ttrpg the way one would approach designing a video game, you need player expectations to be managed towards something like that, AND you kinda need to approach the whole story from a fundamentally different direction anyway. I’m absolutely certain it’s something you can make work, but that’s kind of it: you need to MAKE it work

[@theeyewizard8288]

Yes, emersion, that's the word. It's when you pull the character from the imaginary world to serve an interpretation of it to the people around the table. But RPG is about immersion, the opposite process. It's to picture the imaginary world inside your head through the eyes of your character (first person view mode). It's a dialogue powered analog V.R. It's the Theater of the Mind.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks for watching twice!

[@shattensoldat9111]

I really like your review but I do have one comment in regards to your "This game has no combat system" and "Rules create trust between players and GM" part where at its core mechanics Candela Obscura is obviously heavily inspired by John Harpers Blades in the Dark- where most decision making is based on what your players do but it does have options for stronger foes forcing a PC to avoid damage or if extremely powerful foe who can just damage a PC as part of a conflict and PC can only resist it. I've ran BitD and my players had fun and combat in that game uses a combination of position and effect which is a guideline on how to inflict damage if its make sense, or put PCs in a worse situation and so on. Plenty of time I've had close PC death or them snapping from to much stress. No, combat rules aren't 100% necessary for a good game but Candela Obscura seems to cut this part of the game out and just has the GM make even more decisions on how a conflict resolution goes without base guidelines. Seriously anyone reading this should Google Blades in the Dark SRD and read through the free rules. By far best modern TTRPG I've ran, very improv heavy. Ultimately a portion of your gripes against Camdela Obscura is also directed at Blades in the Dark and Forged in the Dark games which just does Candela Obscura better cause it's flesh out more.

[@blacklodgegames]

I agree, the criticisms here apply equally to those games (even if they are more comprehensive). Story gaming is the root issue though, and people are doing themselves and their tables a disservice by missing out on actual roleplaying games.

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks a ton for watching! We've got more to come soon.

[@shattensoldat9111]

​@blacklodgegames yeah I can get that. I've ran games on both side of the spectrum everything from Monster of the Week, Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse world, FATE, Dreams and Machines to the extreme being Runequest, Shadowrun 5th and 6th edition , GURPs and few others. It's a preference thing and have been lucky that my players love either narrative focus games or mechanics heavy games. There is place for both. Honestly, since I've stopped running DnD 5e (still run pathfinder 2e) and done less combat heavy games my improv skills have improved a lot which has helped me in running Pathfinder 2e and Deadlands. In any case I was going to suggest this games setting be used for another system like Vaesan or such but at the end of your video you mentioned that will be a topic for another video and didn't sound hopeful. Keep up the good work and look forward to further explanation.

[@HoplooWare]

​@@blacklodgegames I am not gonna lie, I agree wholeheartedly about your criticisms towards "Storytelling" (aka railroading) GMs and Candela's record-setting god awful GM advice, but saying in effect that any game lacking enemy statblocks isn't a "TRUE RPG" is at best a personal preference. To pretend that said games are "Story games" because they are trying to make for a different roleplaying & GMing experience is ridiculous.

[@blacklodgegames]

@@HoplooWare Wrong.

[@worldbigfootcentral3933]

10:30. Wow, very well said

[@mykediemart]

Dang it! I was just sorting out my Steampunk /Vampire larp costumes, then you drop this review. Thanks for the review

[@SkywalkerOne1977]

Candela Obscura feels half-baked, like they didn't have time to add rules because this needed to come out an X amount of time before Daggerfall to test the waters with making & distributing their own RPG. Plus, it's just boring when sat next to the greats of this genre.

[@Solemmanolem]

Thank you for your effort with this video and the courage to put this strong opinion out to the public. I agree to a certain extend on the points you're making about trust between the DM and players and that it is actually good for PCs to have a world with NPCs, that act on the same concept of rules, as the players themselves. That kind of system has a lot of effects on the roleplaying of the group and how the PCs make progress on their journey. While I do think the Candela Obscura System and Show are not for me, I don't think the company of Critical Role is cashgrabbing people and feel like your critic comes of a bit harsh. It seems to me, that Critical Role is trying to take RPGs into another direction. Take away agenda from the dice to give it to the players and their imagination. I don't think you can call it a wrong way, but a way that might not work for everybody and maybe shouldn't become a standard. In your scenario of a roleplaying group that simply adjusts their dice and abilities to the test, you think of one type of an adventuring group, that is working together and has no internal problems that affect the situation. No playerconflict. You can also bring that argument to a system like D&D: Everybody can just go online, build their character around a broken set of skills and essentially the dice situation is so much in favour of the players, that the DM has problems presenting meaningfull difficulties. Are RPGs balanced? To a certain degree yes and then they're not. And why souldn't RPGs become a storytelling tool? Why should it only be about RP? I understand your argument, that your story only becomes a story in retrospective, because of the nature of dice rolls, but are we sure that this is the only way a RPG can be played? I sympathize with your way of playing RPGs, but I don't think it is the "right" way, it's just a way. (English is not my first language, so thank you for reading!) (edited for mistakes)

[@Pixie1001.]

Yeah, while I've heard a lot of other valid critisisms about this specific system and how it's somewhat tonally incocsisnt with the ruleset, but I think this guy just doesn't understand Powered by the Apocolypse or Forged in the Dark games - which is fair, it is a big paradigm shift if you've only ever played simulationist games like D&D. But the reality is that these are very throughly play tested systems, that a lot of people would argue are a lot more effective at delivering a roleplay system than a game like 5e where the action is constantly being interrupted by the GM having to dictate actions for an NPC who isn't narratively relevant at that exact moment, or slowing what should be a snappy fight scene with a few dramatic moments of tension into a slow slog of inititative rolls and missing attacks. Playing an RPG like it's a book or TV show instead of a wargame is the whole point of these systems. I think this specific book really could've benefited by announcing it was a Forged in the Dark game on the cover though instead of tucking it away in the special credits, so that it'd be easier for new players to access advice on how they're meant to be played and how to apply their prexisting GMing skills to these more modern systems that they might not be very familiar with running.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@Pixie1001. you don’t get it. From the point of view of the character there is no « story ». As the imaginary world is his reality. That reality is called the diegesis. The secondary world that Tolkien talk about. RPG allows to play a Character at the Diegetic level. It’s like a dialogue powered analog VR.It’s being in the shoes of the character, IN THE MOMENT, seeing through his eyes and interacting with the diegesis directly in total freedom. There is no filter in-between the player and the diegesis at the decision making step. The system is involved at the resolution step. In order to act in the character’s mindset, the players needs to suspend his disbelief (immersion). The story is the consequence, the result of what happens, that’s all. It’s not predetermined as the player retains his free will. And during the game, IN THE MOMENT, nobody nor the DM cares about what the story WILL be. Do not respond to this until you’ve understood. You’re a narrativist, a storygamer. You have been deceived. And you couldn’t be more wrong. Complete Character Agency with Impactful consequences on the ongoing campaign is the specificity of the medium.

[@Pixie1001.]

@@theeyewizard8288 I mean sure that's ONE way to play, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If that's the part of RPGs that you feel is most important to you, then you probably won't enjoy PbTA style systems. And that's ok! But a lot of people view RPGs more as telling a cool story together, everyone pitching in by taking responsiblity of one of the protagonists and building on each other to flesh out the world. Consequences are still important obviously - the world itself is an important character, so your character needs to experience it reacting to what they do, and showing that it has meaning. But they don't need to be as fixed as D&D would have us believe - because when we view the game as a shared story we're making together, we need to accept that consequences are often abstract and unclear. We have a good idea that if we attack someone with a knife, we might get stabbed, but it doesn't really matter if we know the mathemtical probility of that happening. What matters is our character is cocky, they have a vague idea about how difficult they think the fight might be, and they like solving problem with violence. If the GM is suddenly like 'he's a trained assassin, and actually this is a desperate situation with weak effect', then that's a cool twist. Maybe your character will die, or end up permanantly maimed - but either way it'll move the story forward in an interesting way. There is no losing. Just progression of the plot. In addition to that though, I would also add that a diagetic experience is kind of an illusion anyway - often the very gamey elements of D&D that ensure a fair and predictable experience are exactly what throws players out of their immersion - suddenly finding success as their character isn't about making informed decisions or expeicing the world, it's about math and looking at minis to make the best tactical decision. They stop roleplaying, and start playing a boardgame because there's so many little rules constantly breaking them out of the world. In PbTA and other more abstracted systems, you spend a lot more time just being in character without interruption. Sure, someone consequences and rewards feel a bit random and arbitrary, but that's true of real life as well - but at least you have a pretty good beat on how those thngs will be ruled just by knowing your GM, the relevant story tropes of the camapign and fellow players well. After all, even in D&D you don't actually know what the math behind the knife wielding assassin is - you know that it exists, sure, but the DM could homebrew a character of any CR to fight you, and assign any arbitrary value to the knive's damage that they want. It's functionally identical to a Blade's NPC with the traits 'the PCs would lose a fair fight to this guy'.

[@theeyewizard8288]

@@Pixie1001. PbTA are Storygames, which should be labeled as such. People are free to enjoy RPG and Storygames and Video Games and Card Games and Waffles, that's not the point.

[@Pixie1001.]

@@theeyewizard8288 I mean, I kinda see your point, but ultimately you do still roleplay in as you call it, a 'storygame' and you still create a story in a more traditional RPG, so I don't know if they really warrant their own genres. Maybe a sub genre? Especially since the term Storygame has kinda been ground into irrelevance by games like Vampire the Masquerade, that are incredibly crunchy and don't have any rules or systems that actually promote emergent story telling aside from 'the DM has to do everything', but who wanted to seem cooler and more mature than D&D without actually innovating.

[@Avoloch]

where is the second video?

[@blacklodgegames]

Still working on it. Next week will be a different topic and then we will follow up with the second video in this series.

[@DiversityDragons]

Great video - you are killing it lately!

[@blacklodgegames]

Thanks! More to come.

[@miscprojects9662]

A six. Ok on a 6. You managed to anger the fan boys by stating absolute facts. Enough of celebrating mediocrity.

[@blacklodgegames]

Exactly.

[@trushreitsam5802]

Well he has framed his opinion as facts, that's something different. Candela might be bad, but so is his general distain for narrative focused games. Might wanna widen this narrow view of yours.

[@AkselBredahl]

I understand what you're getting at, though I disagree :) To me, what a good game system needs is the absolut minimum. The less the better, as a gm I want to have as few technical things as possible (fx opportunity attacks, flanking etc), things where the game will come to a halt when you arent sure what the rules are. The more I can tell the story the better, I am always coming up with new homebrew to make 5e better for this. And I feel that this system is good at giving the gm free reign over the story, what you see as technical flaws I see as advantages. But I definately see where you are coming from! As a gm my ultimate goal is also to tell a good story, not to win over the players or anything, we arent against each other, and any freedom in the rules is very welcome to me :) Its a very good analysis, and very in depth! Quality content! :)

[@jmwytube]

I really like your summary of what RPGs are and aren't around 10 and 11 minutes in this video. People can play these games different ways, but I think you have to have common definitions to have meaningful discussions about anything. Helps to clarify too what the GM's job is versus the player's (and what the game has to provide for you in terms of structure). Interesting choices that matter (or at least have consequences) are what it's all about at the end of the day and if there's no way to determine the outcomes in a non-arbitrary manner then you're playing an interactive story game, not an RPG - which might be fine! But it's good to know what you're up to.

[@blacklodgegames]

Correct! I also think there are better and worse ways to play these games. If you only want amusement or surface level enjoyment, that is fine, but we want a deeper satisfaction out of the hobby, and that is a higher aim. It is ok and correct to acknowledge the distinction.

[@magonus195]

This is a great fundamental critique of the game. It is related to one of the core problems I see in the OSR scene, which tend to defer so much to GM direction that the result is "Calvinball", essential chaos like your WLIIA bit. Great channel, subscribed.

[@magonus195]

The only thing I'd disagree with is your point around the 18:00 mark. I find a lot of players, especially female players, who genuinely do enjoy being "along for the ride" in an adventure with heavyhanded beats-in a word, railroaded. Rollercoasters are popular, after all, and many players do not like being dominant, decisive, or creative. That said, it is still dumb to outright command a three-act structure and epilogue from your roleplaying game book.