Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Critical Role's 'Daggerheart' Open Playtest Starts In March
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 9305307" data-attributes="member: 5889"><p>I just read through all the rules and saw a few videos online giving people's initial reaction after the playtests. My quick thoughts:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">While the mechanics are in many ways similar to 5e, I think the approach of "both sides really driving the narrative" is what will set it apart in play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">While I like fear and hope bennies, that fact that EVERY SINGLE PC ROLL generates these things just feels too much. I wish it was even one dice was X amount over the other die or something.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Overall this system really relies on an accomplished GM who takes the lesson of the game to heart and uses the mechanics to heighten the narrative rather than diminish it. There are a lot of places in this system that really trusts the GM to know what they are doing. I do worry that GMS that "don't want to feel like an ass" are going to struggle, because the system kind of expects the GM to ratchet up the tension, sometimes mess with the PCS using fear, etc. For a super healthy and communicative group, this will lead to high narrative accomplishment, but a GM that might be lacking some confidence or doesn't quite know what their players want might be very loathe to utilize some of those mechanics.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Compared to 5e, this system actually feels more rules heavy for players, at least martial ones. There is a fair amount of math to do (even just the basic addition of 2 dice + ability is more than the standard 5e roll). You will have a lot of "card" abilities + all of the things you use hope for.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Feel wise, its a lot more like 4e than 5e in several ways. Which I don't think is bad, 4e had some solid mechanics the problem was feel and presentation. And a system that solved the presentation problems could highlight some of the potential that system had.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I'm not sure what the point of treasure is in the game.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some of the monsters look really cool at first glance. That volcanic dragon is AWESOME looking!!! I also like how they do minions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I would say that my number 1 concern with this system is.... that player inaction might be the strongest action at times. Because of:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PC actions generate enemy actions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PC actions can also generate new fear tokens.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PCs have the ability to go multiple times rather than everyone in the group goes once.</li> </ul></li> </ul><p>This means that there is a lot of mechanical incentive to let the "strongest PC in X situation" just go a bunch of times while everyone else sits on the sidelines. Now that can be fun once in a while, and sometimes it narratively makes sense. But I worry that there are going to be "optimizers" in a group that will clash with players that want to make roleplay characters but still want to participate in combat, even with those combat actions might be worse than letting "the best combat character" go multiple times.</p><p></p><p>Again, good group dynamics and communication can solve that, but its never great to have your game system incentize what could be bad group behavior. I would rather have it where a player can go again but maybe it generates 1 additional action token. There will still be times where it makes sense for the PC to go again and again but the system at least notes "most of the time that's just not a great idea".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 9305307, member: 5889"] I just read through all the rules and saw a few videos online giving people's initial reaction after the playtests. My quick thoughts: [LIST] [*]While the mechanics are in many ways similar to 5e, I think the approach of "both sides really driving the narrative" is what will set it apart in play. [*]While I like fear and hope bennies, that fact that EVERY SINGLE PC ROLL generates these things just feels too much. I wish it was even one dice was X amount over the other die or something. [*]Overall this system really relies on an accomplished GM who takes the lesson of the game to heart and uses the mechanics to heighten the narrative rather than diminish it. There are a lot of places in this system that really trusts the GM to know what they are doing. I do worry that GMS that "don't want to feel like an ass" are going to struggle, because the system kind of expects the GM to ratchet up the tension, sometimes mess with the PCS using fear, etc. For a super healthy and communicative group, this will lead to high narrative accomplishment, but a GM that might be lacking some confidence or doesn't quite know what their players want might be very loathe to utilize some of those mechanics. [*]Compared to 5e, this system actually feels more rules heavy for players, at least martial ones. There is a fair amount of math to do (even just the basic addition of 2 dice + ability is more than the standard 5e roll). You will have a lot of "card" abilities + all of the things you use hope for. [*]Feel wise, its a lot more like 4e than 5e in several ways. Which I don't think is bad, 4e had some solid mechanics the problem was feel and presentation. And a system that solved the presentation problems could highlight some of the potential that system had. [*]I'm not sure what the point of treasure is in the game. [*]Some of the monsters look really cool at first glance. That volcanic dragon is AWESOME looking!!! I also like how they do minions. [*]I would say that my number 1 concern with this system is.... that player inaction might be the strongest action at times. Because of: [LIST] [*]PC actions generate enemy actions. [*]PC actions can also generate new fear tokens. [*]PCs have the ability to go multiple times rather than everyone in the group goes once. [/LIST] [/LIST] This means that there is a lot of mechanical incentive to let the "strongest PC in X situation" just go a bunch of times while everyone else sits on the sidelines. Now that can be fun once in a while, and sometimes it narratively makes sense. But I worry that there are going to be "optimizers" in a group that will clash with players that want to make roleplay characters but still want to participate in combat, even with those combat actions might be worse than letting "the best combat character" go multiple times. Again, good group dynamics and communication can solve that, but its never great to have your game system incentize what could be bad group behavior. I would rather have it where a player can go again but maybe it generates 1 additional action token. There will still be times where it makes sense for the PC to go again and again but the system at least notes "most of the time that's just not a great idea". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Critical Role's 'Daggerheart' Open Playtest Starts In March
Top