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.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think "the GM will sort it out somehow" is that great solution to potential design issues. A good GM might, an inexperienced won't. And for both it would be better if they wouldn't have to. I also don't think that "it is narrative" is really a free licence for dumping design issues on the GM's lap this way.

How much of an outlier does a "design issue" have to be for it to be considered a priority. If it is inherently rare in the system and requires active bad decision making on the part of the players,is it a "design issue."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How much of an outlier does a "design issue" have to be for it to be considered a priority. If it is inherently rare in the system and requires active bad decision making on the part of the players,is it a "design issue."

I don't think it is quite as much an outlier than you think. The system allows creating characters with wildly different combat capabilities. It is not terribly unlikely, that in a group of say, six characters, there will be quite significant differences in combat power without anyone making "bad decisions". Or if those are "bad decisions" why does the system allow them?

 

[Reynard]

I don't think it is quite as much an outlier than you think. The system allows creating characters with wildly different combat capabilities. It is not terribly unlikely, that in a group of say, six characters, there will be quite significant differences in combat power without anyone making "bad decisions". Or if those are "bad decisions" why does the system allow them?

Again, the example was specifically an attempt to create one combat monster and one non-combat character, at higher level. In the real world, the characters would be leveling as the campaign progresses, so these choices would occur within the context of the actual game being played. If the disparity still existed, it would be the result of intention. The players WANT that disparity in play.

I am not saying everything is perfect and there are no problems with character creation or development. I am saying that this specific problem is an invented one. I am also saying that a big combat power disparity in a narrative game is not something you should design against because it is perfectly manageable and may be something that players want.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, the example was specifically an attempt to create one combat monster and one non-combat character, at higher level. In the real world, the characters would be leveling as the campaign progresses, so these choices would occur within the context of the actual game being played. If the disparity still existed, it would be the result of intention. The players WANT that disparity in play.

Just no. That a player invests more in non-combat aspects doesn't mean they want to completely sit out the combats. (Which are an important aspect of this game.) That is not a result of such a decision basically in any other game. That it is in this one is a serious flaw.

I am not saying everything is perfect and there are no problems with character creation or development. I am saying that this specific problem is an invented one. I am also saying that a big combat power disparity in a narrative game is not something you should design against because it is perfectly manageable and may be something that players want.

I think your downplaying the issues is not helping this game to become better. Furthermore, if this was intentional than at least the game should clearly warn about this outcome, so that both players and the GM could better take it into account. I would also appreciate if you would stop using "narrative" as a magic word to dismiss valid criticism.

 

[Reynard]

Just no. That a player invests more in non-combat aspects doesn't mean they want to completely sit out the combats. (Which are an important aspect of this game.) That is not a result of such a decision basically in any other game. That it is in this one is a serious flaw.

We're going around in circles here over a completely theoretical example that has almost no chance to occur in actual play.

I think your downplaying the issues is not helping this game to become better. Furthermore, if this was intentional than at least the game should clearly warn about this outcome, so that both players and the GM could better take it into account.

Again, not a thing likely to occur.

I would also appreciate if you would stop using "narrative" as a magic word to dismiss valid criticism.

Okay.

A player that did this intentionally told you how they want to play their character. If you as GM force them to engage in parts of the game they designed their character to not engage in, you are a bad GM.

This is, frankly, a stupid argument all around. Let's both run DH up a few levels and see how it works in actual play before we revisit it, okay?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Emphasis mine.

Maybe not innate in the game, but with those two in your group there is definitely something that should make you want to run combats differently -- if not less frequently -- than 5E. Here you have one player telling you they want to stab things, and another telling you they want to burgle stuff. There is no reason in a narrative game you can't accommodate both without sacrificing anything.

You can do both, but doing them both at the same time is the issue. You could end up with one player doing all the fighting, whist the other plays on their phone, and the reverse when the burgling is going on.

 

[Reynard]

You can do both, but doing them both at the same time is the issue. You could end up with one player doing all the fighting, whist the other plays on their phone, and the reverse when the burgling is going on.

I mentioned this upthread but I think it bears repeating:

One thing the CR cast does really well, that players could work to emulate, is being a fan of the other players when the spotlight isn't on them, to remain engaged and contributing to everyone's fun even when it isn't your turn or your character isn't there. A player that immediately turns to their phone when someone else is in the spotlight is a bad player and should be told so.

 

[pemerton]

I mentioned this upthread but I think it bears repeating:

One thing the CR cast does really well, that players could work to emulate, is being a fan of the other players when the spotlight isn't on them, to remain engaged and contributing to everyone's fun even when it isn't your turn or your character isn't there. A player that immediately turns to their phone when someone else is in the spotlight is a bad player and should be told so.

Saved me posting the same sort of reply.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You're correct that we're going on in circles, but I want to address this.

A player that did this intentionally told you how they want to play their character. If you as GM force them to engage in parts of the game they designed their character to not engage in, you are a bad GM.

No one is talking about the GM forcing the players to do anything. If a player doesn't want to participate in combat and thus doesn't invest in combat skills, there is no problem. I just don't believe that the player making a character weaker in combat automatically means this, as it doesn't mean it basically in any other game, and it is just due a system quirk that might not be instantly apparent that it so here. So if this is the intent, it should be made explicit in the text.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mentioned this upthread but I think it bears repeating:

One thing the CR cast does really well, that players could work to emulate, is being a fan of the other players when the spotlight isn't on them, to remain engaged and contributing to everyone's fun even when it isn't your turn or your character isn't there. A player that immediately turns to their phone when someone else is in the spotlight is a bad player and should be told so.

So, by your definition, in the real world most players are bad players. Good game design encourages players to be less bad. I don't see anything to encourage that here. You are basically saying "the GM should whack the players with a stick if they aren't as good as professional role-players."