Critical Role's 'Daggerheart' Open Playtest Starts In March

On March 12th, Critical Role's Darrington Press will be launching the open playtest for Daggerheart, their new fantasy TTRPG/

Using cards and two d12s, the system plays on 'the dualities of hope and fear'. The game is slated for a 2025 release.

Almost a year ago, we announced that we’ve been working hard behind-the-scenes on Daggerheart, our contribution to the world of high-fantasy tabletop roleplaying games.

Daggerheart is a game of brave heroics and vibrant worlds that are built together with your gaming group. Create a shared story with your adventuring party, and shape your world through rich, long-term campaign play.

When it’s time for the game mechanics to control fate, players roll one HOPE die and one FEAR die (both 12-sided dice), which will ultimately impact the outcome for your characters. This duality between the forces of hope and fear on every hero drives the unique character-focused narratives in Daggerheart.

In addition to dice, Daggerheart’s card system makes it easy to get started and satisfying to grow your abilities by bringing your characters’ background and capabilities to your fingertips. Ancestry and Community cards describe where you come from and how your experience shapes your customs and values. Meanwhile, your Subclass and Domain cards grant your character plenty of tantalizing abilities to choose from as your character evolves.

And now, dear reader, we’re excited to let you know that our Daggerheart Open Beta Playtest will launch globally on our 9th anniversary, Tuesday, March 12th!

We want anyone and everyone (over the age of 18, please) to help us make Daggerheart as wonderful as possible, which means…helping us break the game. Seriously! The game is not finished or polished yet, which is why it’s critical (ha!) to gather all of your feedback ahead of Daggerheart’s public release in 2025.

 

[pemerton]

I'm beginning to think you don't know what a narrative RPG is.

Well, @Paul Farquhar means - by "narrative RPG" - a RPG in which the GM presents the players with one or more stories to engage in (via the play of their PCs). This is the classic post-DL style of RPGing.

The contrast would be (say) relatively plot-free sandboxing/hex-crawling, or classic dungeon-crawling.

There is no "pawn stance" in Paul Farquhar's game.

"Narrative" is generally used in the TTRPG space to refer to a specific style of mechanics, most often associated with PbtA derivatives.

Vincent Baker says, in the Apocalypse World acknowledgements, that "The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards." But "narrativism" is a technical term. I don't think that "narrative" is. For instance, in a recent thread @Reynard used the phrase "narrative mechanics" to refer to a type of mechanic of which almost none is found in Apocalypse World or Prince Valiant, despite these two games being poster-children for narrativist RPGing.

Classic case of people using a similar word to mean different things. You can play D&D in such a way to focus on narrative, but it’s not going to have something like the Syndicate ability in Daggerheart where the rogue can, in play, invent an NPC and story hook for the GM to implement.

To be fair, the original AD&D OA did give a version of this ability to the yakuza class. (Called "contacts".) It was a bit less developed than the Daggerheart version - and definitely did not have the same Apocalypse World-derived structure of questions for the player to answer - but I don't think it's helpful to treat one particular approach to D&D as if it has always been the whole game.

 

[SakanaSensei]

Well, @Paul Farquhar means - by "narrative RPG" - a RPG in which the GM presents the players with one or more stories to engage in (via the play of their PCs). This is the classic post-DL style of RPGing.

The contrast would be (say) relatively plot-free sandboxing/hex-crawling, or classic dungeon-crawling.

There is no "pawn stance" in Paul Farquhar's game.

Vincent Baker says, in the Apocalypse World acknowledgements, that "The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards." But "narrativism" is a technical term. I don't think that "narrative" is. For instance, in a recent thread @Reynard used the phrase "narrative mechanics" to refer to a type of mechanic of which almost none is found in Apocalypse World or Prince Valiant, despite these two games being poster-children for narrativist RPGing.

To be fair, the original AD&D OA did give a version of this ability to the yakuza class. (Called "contacts".) It was a bit less developed than the Daggerheart version - and definitely did not have the same Apocalypse World-derived structure of questions for the player to answer - but I don't think it's helpful to treat one particular approach to D&D as if it has always been the whole game.

Oh sure, I understand! I just saw what seemed to be people getting hackles up about a term and just not really meaning the same thing. Earlier someone said “backgrounds in 5E could let you build up NPCs and plot hooks like the DH rogue,” but that’s really not the same play experience as a player having explicit permission through an ability to do that improvised at the drop of a hat mid-session.

Daggerheart seems to have quite a few bits in it that allows for writer’s room style play where everyone at the table has the ability to build the world up. That’s doable in DnD, but it’s not mechanically backed in the same way. I understand some people don’t like that dynamic, and more power to them!

I just hope that Daggerheart continues to have something close to its current stylings moving forward instead of adjusting to fit what people who want something closer to DnD are asking for. Like I mentioned earlier, I appreciate that MCDM have said “our game is X, if you want Y go play Shadowdark, if you want Z go play…” If someone is fine with 5E, they should keep playing it!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I ended up putting down that in their tier 0 setting of the Sablewood, it would be very helpful to have more art or words dedicated to describing the hybrid animals, because I had a hard time picturing just what a cat squirrel or eeligator might look like.

This is just an example of the game's unfinished state. But the trick is to decide what is most distinctive about each of the creatures. So, a squirrel is an arboreal creature with a big fluffy tail. A cat is a stealthy predator with keen senses. So our squirrelcat (sounds better) is a stealthy arboreal predator with a big fluffy tail. We can deduce from that that it must have the head and claws of a cat, with the body and tail of a squirrel. The eeligator has a bite attack, so it must have the head of an alligator, which means it has the body of an eel by default. I would make that an electric eel if it's not already.

 

[pemerton]

Daggerheart seems to have quite a few bits in it that allows for writer’s room style play where everyone at the table has the ability to build the world up. That’s doable in DnD, but it’s not mechanically backed in the same way.

The proper adjudication of the "player fiat" aspects of 5e D&D backgrounds (like the Folk Hero's Rustic Hospitality) has been a topic of contention on these boards!

I wouldn't be surprised if some groups pick up DaggerHeart, and treat the Rogue Syndicate feature "When you arrive in a heavily populated town or city, you know somebody that calls this place home" as subject to an implied GM veto, even though nothing in the text of the ability, or of the game more generally, suggests that it is.

 

[NaturalZero]

Has anyone play tested "high level" Daggerheart?

I see a lot of people playtesting it but playtesting low level.

D&D ran into it's many issues edition after edition because the vast focus of playtesting was at low level and the rules Broke Down from mid level on.

As I read the domain cards and simulate turns, I could see Daggerheart getting very funky with advanced characters and adversaries. The "power gamer" and "accidental joke character" controls are very light.

One thing that I'm dubious about is choosing what you get when you level up and eschewing other benefits. There are some caps on how much you can improve certain things at certain tiers but I see some things (proficiency!) being "must haves" while other options feel like bad choices by comparison.

 

[Fifth Element]

I’m noticing an interesting dichotomy form between people who’ve only read the playtest, and people who’ve played the playtest. Obviously, I can’t see everything that’s being posted, but it seems like the game might play better than it reads. Most post-played reports I’ve seen have been positive. I’m scheduled for a session this weekend, I’m looking forward to seeing what my thoughts are after playing it.

Of course, don't forget about selection bias. People who like this sort of mechanics are far more likely to play the game. People who know they dislike the mechanics generally won't play it.

 

[Reynard]

Of course, don't forget about selection bias. People who like this sort of mechanics are far more likely to play the game. People who know they dislike the mechanics generally won't play it.

But they will still go on and on about them.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing that I'm dubious about is choosing what you get when you level up and eschewing other benefits. There are some caps on how much you can improve certain things at certain tiers but I see some things (proficiency!) being "must haves" while other options feel like bad choices by comparison.

You can pick Proficiency +1 5 times over 9 levels. And you can increase your primary trait 3 times over 5 levels.
So over 18 picks you can go hard damage 8 times.

I wonder how much a character who goes hard on offense is over a more spread out PC.

Everyone is talking about the "bad selfish player.". My worry is about running the equivalent of to a D&D ranger/rogue, sorcerer/wizard, damage fighters, or paladin/warlock and having mechanical advantage and incentive to take the first 3 turns to burst the enemy down.

"No one would do that."

DPS/DPR sneaky assassins, big smiters, first turn ranged alphastrikers, and mega-fireballers are the most popular combat RPG archetypes in gaming, period.

That tango and struggle between "hands off rule of cool narrative play" and "choice-based crunchy combat tactics fun" might be a tough dance when leveling comes in the picture.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You can pick Proficiency +1 5 times over 9 levels. And you can increase your primary trait 3 times over 5 levels.
So over 18 picks you can go hard damage 8 times.

I wonder how much a character who goes hard on offense is over a more spread out PC.

Everyone is talking about the "bad selfish player.". My worry is about running the equivalent of to a D&D ranger/rogue, sorcerer/wizard, damage fighters, or paladin/warlock and having mechanical advantage to take the first 3 turns to burst the enemy down.

"No one would do that."

DPS/DPR sneaky assassins, big smiters, first turn ranged alphastrikers, and mega-fireballers are the most popular combat RPG archetypes in gaming, period.

That tango and struggle between "hands off rule of cool narrative play" and "choice-based crunchy combat tactics fun" might be a tough dance when leveling comes in the picture.

The action token system makes some characters being way more effective in combat a much bigger deal than it would be in an initiative system. In initiative system everyone can still contribute, even though some might be less effective than others, but here the optimal thing is to let the most effective characters to take all the actions where the weaker ones just stand by, and bigger the effectiveness gap is more obvious and appealing that strategy becomes.

 

[Campbell]

You can pick Proficiency +1 5 times over 9 levels. And you can increase your primary trait 3 times over 5 levels.
So over 18 picks you can go hard damage 8 times.

I wonder how much a character who goes hard on offense is over a more spread out PC.

Everyone is talking about the "bad selfish player.". My worry is about running the equivalent of to a D&D ranger/rogue, sorcerer/wizard, damage fighters, or paladin/warlock and having mechanical advantage to take the first 3 turns to burst the enemy down.

"No one would do that."

DPS/DPR sneaky assassins, big smiters, first turn ranged alphastrikers, and mega-fireballers are the most popular combat RPG archetypes in gaming, period.

That tango and struggle between "hands off rule of cool narrative play" and "choice-based crunchy combat tactics fun" might be a tough dance when leveling comes in the picture.

The advancement math is really my biggest concern. Not just the ability to alpha strike, but also the ability to like stack defensive builds. Like the Stalwart Guardian who goes hard in the paint for thresholds and armor boxes - how does that stack up against monster math and compared to more glass cannon type builds?