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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

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.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

The issue is switching to the non-force users in the movies doesn't both give the sith/droids/troopers/hunters more turns as well as skip the jedis extra turns.

Especially sense Fantasy has more reactive and defensive abilities than Sci-Fi. Healers, Tanks, Faces, Trappers, Sages, etc.

It's not bad if the low action characters don't move the clock. But in DH, they do. So it makes sense for them to not act. And Bob, the arch-seraph's player, falls asleep or boots up Marvel Snap.

Most combat or time heavy RPGs force every play to have a turn or make sure every player always has an strong action to contribute that doesn't move the clock.

 

[Reynard]

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.

In a narrative game, a character legitimately having nothing to contribute to the narrative of the combat isn't a flaw with the system, it is a flaw with the construction of the narrative.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In a narrative game, a character legitimately having nothing to contribute to the narrative of the combat isn't a flaw with the system, it is a flaw with the construction of the narrative.

The system of a narrative game should endeavour to help to generate the desired narrative. If it doesn't, that's a flaw in the system, if it produces undesired narrative, that is a major flaw.

 

[Reynard]

The system of a narrative game should endeavour to help to generate the desired narrative. If it doesn't, that's a flaw in the system, if it produces undesired narrative, that is a major flaw.

This one does. That's what both the metacurrency and the free-form initiative are for. Again, this only goes bad if someone is not plating in good faith.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This one does. That's what both the metacurrency and the free-form initiative are for. Again, this only goes bad if someone is not plating in good faith.

You are just accusing players for the faults of the system. In a game with detailed combat rules and a ton of options to contribute to combat, it is not playing in bad faith to try to take mechanics into account and trying to win combats, nor it is playing in bad faith to feel side-lined if the mechanics make it so that taking actions in combat is a literal liability.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Yes. But it’s incredibly unlikely to actually happen in play. You’d have to have a tactically-minded optimizer player build a character who is somehow bad at combat in a monster-fighting game where basically everyone’s good at combat, and for them to not engage in combat, and then have them complain about their PC not being good at combat (their choice) and not engaging in combat (again, their choice). In this very unlikely situation, the fix is simply swapping your load out to more combat-focused cards.

Players who are not tactically-minded optimizers would very likely not notice this “strategy” and happily play however they want, having fun and throwing dice while gleefully being unaware they were playing “less than optimally.” They would only notice “the problem” if a tactically-minded optimizer decided to be a jerk and tell this player how they’re “having fun wrong.”

So this might technically be a thing on paper, but it very likely will not be a thing at the table.

 

[Reynard]

You are just accusing players for the faults of the system. In a game with detailed combat rules and a ton of options to contribute to combat, it is not playing in bad faith to try to take mechanics into account and trying to win combats, nor it is playing in bad faith to feel side-lined if the mechanics make it so that taking actions in combat is a literal liability.

No, I'm saying that I don't think you understand the point of narrative play. Or perhaps you understand it but don't think it is worthwhile. In any case, you are discounting it to the point of criticizing DH as if it weren't a narrative game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. But it’s incredibly unlikely to actually happen in play. You’d have to have a tactically-minded optimizer player build a character who is somehow bad at combat in a monster-fighting game where basically everyone’s good at combat, and for them to not engage in combat, and then have them complain about their PC not being good at combat (their choice) and not engaging in combat (again, their choice). In this very unlikely situation, the fix is simply swapping your load out to more combat-focused cards.

Players who are not tactically-minded optimizers would very likely not notice this “strategy” and happily play however they want, having fun and throwing dice while gleefully being unaware they were playing “less than optimally.” They would only notice “the problem” if a tactically-minded optimizer decided to be a jerk and tell this player how they’re “having fun wrong.”

So this might technically be a thing on paper, but it very likely will not be a thing at the table.

I think it will become rather obvious quickly, as long as some characters are better at combat than others. People are new to this game now, and mostly have played maybe one session. But over time it will become obvious, that as PC actions generate NPC actions, one should weigh whether acting at all is "worth it."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, I'm saying that I don't think you understand the point of narrative play. Or perhaps you understand it but don't think it is worthwhile. In any case, you are discounting it to the point of criticizing DH as if it weren't a narrative game.

I have played narrative games. They tend to not have involved and detailed combat mechanics and a ton of combat powers like DH. Those will absolutely lead people thinking combats as winnable minigames.