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.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you want a game that balances PC power level and don't mind constraints on the fiction, there's always 4E.

Daggerheart is like 5E in that it trusts the DM and players to be considerate of each other.

 

[SteveC]

Proficiency and Domain Balance

1 high level character can being dealing 6dX+Y with a hand of combat heavy cards and another can be doing 3dX+Y with a hand of utility cards

There's no enforced baseline competency past level 1. So player 2 is dealing less damage AND giving the GM more actions and fear as the game gets harder.

I guess that assumes other characters can't do equally useful things in combat. The first character I built was a Bard and their Hypnotic Shimmer is like Hypnotic Pattern except it doesn't wear off if you attack a target. I think that might make things worth it. And I see a lot of other stuff too. Definitely not sure how higher levels will play out, but I suspect it will be more than "hit it with a big weapon."

 

[Minigiant]

If you want a game that balances PC power level and don't mind constraints on the fiction, there's always 4E.

Daggerheart is like 5E in that it trusts the DM and players to be considerate of each other.

Again it's not about being inconsiderate.

Making a standard fantasy longbow archer who ends up dealing double or triple damage the next guy isn't being inconsiderate.
Especially since Blade, Bone, and Valor are almost all "Moar Damage" and "Take Less Damage".

Proficiency shouldn't be a choice. It should go up with level..

 

[TwoSix]

Again it's not about being inconsiderate.

Making a standard fantasy longbow archer who ends up dealing double or triple damage the next guy isn't being inconsiderate.
Especially since Blade, Bone, and Valor are almost all "Moar Damage" and "Take Less Damage".

Proficiency shouldn't be a choice. It should go up with level..

If a player isn't making combat-focused choices (like taking proficiency), aren't they simply flagging that they aren't interested in being primary contributers in combat?

There seems to be a lot of assumption that everyone taking equal amounts of actions in combat is the obvious "right thing"; I think that's an assumption that maybe should be interrogated a little more.

I'm not sure this class of players who both want to be consistent, equal contributors in combat, and yet are incapable of making proper build choices such that their contribution is worthwhile, is really large enough to be worth overly worrying about.

Honestly, I think we need more playtesting at the 8+ level range to see how much more valuable a damage-focused combatant is over a more defensive, utility one. If playtesting shows it to be a major issue, then you add some rules for slightly less freeform initiative.

 

[Reynard]

If a player isn't making combat-focused choices (like taking proficiency), aren't they simply flagging that they aren't interested in being primary contributers in combat?

I know I say this a lot, but: no matter the game system, a player's character sheet is a letter to the GM about what they want to do in the game. Read it.

 

[pemerton]

Narrative is not always fair and balanced. Story and gameplay sometimes work at cross purposes.

No RPG design is perfect - but as a general rule, if "story" and gameplay are working at cross purposes, that's a sign of poor RPG design.

So you're saying some characters doing nothing during the combat isn't a problem? I think it will be a problem for many people.

It isn't a fault. unless the tactical minded players refuse to engage the narrative part of the game with their fellow participants. And that's the player's fault.

This isn't to say, of course, that you can't make some design considerations to help alleviate a little of that tension, but the only solution for the problem you have produced is to eliminate the freeform narrative initiative, in favor of a tactical focus that undermines the game.

Think about it this way: inspirational media will often focus specifically on a badass character doing badass things, then switch to another character, with no real regard to whether the spotlight time is "fair." In combat, spotlight time is divied up by how cool and interesting it is. That's the aim here. And, again, the whole table is working together to make that fight or action scene cool and interesting, and players are contributing and engaged even if it isn't their character's turn.

I think RPGing is better when, as a player, I can play my character without having to "work together" to make things cool and interesting. The system should ensure that.

A RPG that I have GMed a fair bit, that makes combat important, and that does not use initiative, is Prince Valiant. It's possible, in Prince Valiant, for players to build PCs with different degrees of combat effectiveness - and that is the case in our game. As GM, the main thing that I use to make things interesting is my control over the situation, and this can be done in (at least) two ways:

(1) If there is a fight going on, and three knights are there, some of the opponents are going to do things that involve the third knight, even if that third knight is not stellar in combat;

(2) If there is a fight going on, then the opponents might do things that provoke the third knight to action (eg threaten his loved ones), even if that third knight is not stellar in combat.​

I'm still getting my head around the DaggerHeart rules, but it seems to me that the GM's use of the action tracker, and making of moves more generally, are the pathways to (1) and (2).

 

[pemerton]

Honestly, I think we need more playtesting at the 8+ level range to see how much more valuable a damage-focused combatant is over a more defensive, utility one. If playtesting shows it to be a major issue, then you add some rules for slightly less freeform initiative.

Or change the rules for how damage, defence and utility are balanced against one another.

 

[SakanaSensei]

Again it's not about being inconsiderate.

Making a standard fantasy longbow archer who ends up dealing double or triple damage the next guy isn't being inconsiderate.
Especially since Blade, Bone, and Valor are almost all "Moar Damage" and "Take Less Damage".

Proficiency shouldn't be a choice. It should go up with level..

I largely disagree with a lot of your points and think that they’re trying to systematize away problems that wouldn’t exist at my tables (can only speak for myself)…

…but every character I’ve made to see how things progress over time, from my social focused knight from the lower planes to my arcane gauntlet battle mage to my beast taming halfling ranger, I’ve grabbed Proficiency as soon as possible on reflex.

A choice that’s nearly always chosen isn’t much of a choice and I think I could agree with proficiency being one of the automatic gets at level up.

 

[thefutilist]

(1) If there is a fight going on, and three knights are there, some of the opponents are going to do things that involve the third knight, even if that third knight is not stellar in combat;​

​

(2) If there is a fight going on, then the opponents might do things that provoke the third knight to action (eg threaten his loved ones), even if that third knight is not stellar in combat.​

I agree with you and it’s why I think Daggerheart will end up getting rewritten. I don’t think the approach you describe scales well and the Crit roll cast have eight players.

I also think that the meta-currency breaks the Dungeon World initiative style. Either you as GM ignore the meta-currency and basically play it as Dungeon World or find you yourself in a world of really crappy fight choreography.

Lastly, I think saying it’s a PbtA style game is maybe somewhat accurate. It’s in the tradition of rules adherence. I don’t think this will gel with Mercers GM style, he won’t budge and the system won’t budge so he’ll have to relearn the whole Magicians choice, fudge without fudging thing we all had to learn when we were playing in that style. (maybe, interesting to see what happens if he doesn't)

Which isn’t to say DH is a bad game per say, if I was playing in that style I might even use it, although I’d ignore/hack certain rules.

 

[NaturalZero]

If a player isn't making combat-focused choices (like taking proficiency), aren't they simply flagging that they aren't interested in being primary contributers in combat?

For me, the issue becomes the imbalance of the offerings though. If I want to survive combats and be competent, proficiency wildly over shadows +1 to two experiences, or +1 to ability scores I don't use, and it feels like a baseline requirement instead of an option. I'd rather feel like I'm making a hard decision instead of just paying a proficiency tax.