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]

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.

I feel like this ignores or discounts the fact that a story is being told here. That is the point of the system. Both the GM and the players are working together to create the most interesting narrative. Trying to overly restrict the design in order protect against the jerk player is a bad idea. Just tell the group to kick the jerk player out. If someone is not interested in being part of the collaborative telling story process, they should not be at that table.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

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?

Both are my concern.

In a 4 person group,you can have the classic offense focused striker and controller who take ALL the turns and the defense focused healer and tank who can't be killed but doesn't take turns except to prop up the damage and control when the GM focuses on them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I feel like this ignores or discounts the fact that a story is being told here. That is the point of the system. Both the GM and the players are working together to create the most interesting narrative. Trying to overly restrict the design in order protect against the jerk player is a bad idea. Just tell the group to kick the jerk player out. If someone is not interested in being part of the collaborative telling story process, they should not be at that table.

This game has a ton of widgets that contribute to combat. This is not some rules light game with fuzzy combat rules. And it is not being "a jerk player" to try to play the game tactically. I think it is serious design flaw if the gameplay the system incentivises and the intended gameplay are not the same.

 

[Minigiant]

I feel like this ignores or discounts the fact that a story is being told here. That is the point of the system. Both the GM and the players are working together to create the most interesting narrative. Trying to overly restrict the design in order protect against the jerk player is a bad idea. Just tell the group to kick the jerk player out. If someone is not interested in being part of the collaborative telling story process, they should not be at that table.

It's not a jerk player.

If I am making a sneaky assassin or killer archer or HAND OF GOD! pumping offense and deal more damage than the next 2 PCs, why are those PCs taking turns over me?

The game is tilted because of my very sensible build. I should go first and second every battle and I'm not even powergaming.

 

[DragonLancer]

Breaking the game is part of what they want from the playtest. So this is something to report to them.

 

[Minigiant]

Breaking the game is part of what they want from the playtest. So this is something to report to them.

Exactly.

My fear is that not enough people playtest higher levels because traditionally in TTPRGS this has been a major issue.
High level DH looks like it will make High level 5e look like High level PF2.

This is more important in Daggerheart as it seems like a very Stormwind Fallacy RPG as you can easily play a highly tiltied "roleplay" PCs.

 

[Reynard]

This game has a ton of widgets that contribute to combat. This is not some rules light game with fuzzy combat rules. And it is not being "a jerk player" to try to play the game tactically. I think it is serious design flaw if the gameplay the system incentivises and the intended gameplay are not the same.

It's not a jerk player.

If I am making a sneaky assassin or killer archer or HAND OF GOD! pumping offense and deal more damage than the next 2 PCs, why are those PCs taking turns over me?

The game is tilted because of my very sensible build. I should go first and second every battle and I'm not even powergaming.

You both seems to be arguing two opposing points simultaneously, but maybe I am misunderstanding you.

The player is a "jerk" if they are hogging spotlight time. For that to be true, the other players need to feel like it is their turn because their actions have something to contribute to the narrative. If it makes sense in the fiction for the Hand of God to take down his targets in the first couple actions of the combat, that is what should be happening. If it isn't though, and that player just wants to dominate the tactical part of the game without regard to the fiction, they are being a jerk.

Remember that there is a GM here, too, that designed the encounter with the fiction in mind. If the encounter is poorly designed, then the jerk player is in fact the GM.

This game is not D&D. That's the point. In D&D the dice rule the story. This is the other way around. "Balance" should be a moderate concern, but not to the degree you are talking about it here. Do not let the tactical part of the game overwhelm the narrative part of the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You both seems to be arguing two opposing points simultaneously, but maybe I am misunderstanding you.

The player is a "jerk" if they are hogging spotlight time. For that to be true, the other players need to feel like it is their turn because their actions have something to contribute to the narrative. If it makes sense in the fiction for the Hand of God to take down his targets in the first couple actions of the combat, that is what should be happening. If it isn't though, and that player just wants to dominate the tactical part of the game without regard to the fiction, they are being a jerk.

Remember that there is a GM here, too, that designed the encounter with the fiction in mind. If the encounter is poorly designed, then the jerk player is in fact the GM.

This game is not D&D. That's the point. In D&D the dice rule the story. This is the other way around. "Balance" should be a moderate concern, but not to the degree you are talking about it here. Do not let the tactical part of the game overwhelm the narrative part of the game.

The issue is the narrative and tactical pulling in opposite directions. Tactically the most competent character "hogging the spotlight" is the obviously correct thing to do, narratively that is unlikely to be most entertaining thing for the whole group. It is not the players' or the GM's fault that the game was designed to cause this sort of tension, it is the designers' fault.

 

[Minigiant]

You both seems to be arguing two opposing points simultaneously, but maybe I am misunderstanding you.

The player is a "jerk" if they are hogging spotlight time. For that to be true, the other players need to feel like it is their turn because their actions have something to contribute to the narrative. If it makes sense in the fiction for the Hand of God to take down his targets in the first couple actions of the combat, that is what should be happening. If it isn't though, and that player just wants to dominate the tactical part of the game without regard to the fiction, they are being a jerk.

Remember that there is a GM here, too, that designed the encounter with the fiction in mind. If the encounter is poorly designed, then the jerk player is in fact the GM.

This game is not D&D. That's the point. In D&D the dice rule the story. This is the other way around. "Balance" should be a moderate concern, but not to the degree you are talking about it here. Do not let the tactical part of the game overwhelm the narrative part of the game.

What I am saying is that Daggerheart possibly allows it to make simultion and tactical sense for one or two PCs to hog the spotlight because it could

1. match the story
2. be the most effective combat strategy
3. has few rules to disincentivize the tactic

Thus a player or players could possibly be a spotlight hog(s) and it both make simulation sense and tactical sense.

This make the best narrative "Play stupid/bad".

 

[Reynard]

The issue is the narrative and tactical pulling in opposite directions. Tactically the most competent character "hogging the spotlight" is the obviously correct thing to do, narratively that is unlikely to be most entertaining thing for the whole group. It is not the players' or the GM's fault that the game was designed to cause this sort of tension, it is the designers' fault.

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.