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]

So "game breaker" is a bit of a strong phrase here. I'm not saying this ruins the system or anything. But....this is a beta....our goal is to break it...and yes that means there are some concerns here.

True. I am not saying there's nothing here. I am just pushing back against the idea that this very specific, intentionally created problem is a Major Concern.

If creating such a non-combat focused character is considered a "novice move" that is "not very smart".... well maybe the system should just not allow for that degree of specialization?

Well, it isn't just "creating a non-combat focused character" -- in the example, it is intentionally fully leveling up a character to be non-combat focused. Someone either has to be completely oblivious ("novice" and "not smart") or they have to be doing it on purpose. Specifically in a narrative driven game, I would rather preserve the intention than protect against the accident. In a narrative game, a pair of players may well want that Bane/Catwoman team up book, and i would rather it be there for them than eliminated because some theoretical new player jumping into a high level game with no guidance from the Gm or other players (considering how astoundingly unlikely that scenario is).

I think a more important use of playtesters' time is to make sure that people can create the kind of character they want (assuming it is in the game's milieu) to play intentionally and with relative ease.

 

[Stalker0]

Specifically in a narrative driven game, I would rather preserve the intention than protect against the accident. In a narrative game, a pair of players may well want that Bane/Catwoman team up book, and i would rather it be there for them than eliminated because some theoretical new player jumping into a high level game with no guidance from the Gm or other players (considering how astoundingly unlikely that scenario is).

I think a more important use of playtesters' time is to make sure that people can create the kind of character they want (assuming it is in the game's milieu) to play intentionally and with relative ease.

This is the best counterpoint I have seen offered so far. There are two issues that combine to make this a problem.

1) The idea you can create a "completely non-combat" character.
2) That the game incentivizes that player to not participate in combat.

The first point on its own isn't terrible, as you said some people just want to play that character, and are making a conscious choice. I think its when its combined with the second that things become an issue. In the "standard systems" where each player automatically get a turn....well sure your non-combat character is completely inept, but maybe you have some fun with it, try to get creative on how you can milk out even a bit of combat effectiveness, or do it for pure humor. Everyone has a good laugh at your hijinks as the "combat players" go back to their business of killing things.

But in the DH system....its beyond "not helping", you are "actually making the enemy stronger". Suddenly its not fun and games for everyone anymore, as your desire to have some fun in teh combat is now actively hurting the rest of the party's chance to win or even to survive. Some groups won't care, they are just there to kick back and go with the flow. But there are players that will REALLY care, I know them, I've played with them. I do think that's a real problem that is worth a mechanical solution.

 

[pemerton]

I still have not had a chance to read the rules properly.

But on this combat thing - my understanding of 5e D&D is that there is no formal system of turn-taking outside of combat. And presumably that game play is regarded by some 5e players, at least, as satisfactory.

So I don't see why a game that is hoping to appeal to some 5e players needs to have turn-taking as a core principle.

 

[Thomas Shey]

True. I am not saying there's nothing here. I am just pushing back against the idea that this very specific, intentionally created problem is a Major Concern.

Well, it isn't just "creating a non-combat focused character" -- in the example, it is intentionally fully leveling up a character to be non-combat focused. Someone either has to be completely oblivious ("novice" and "not smart") or they have to be doing it on purpose. Specifically in a narrative driven game, I would rather preserve the intention than protect against the accident. In a narrative game, a pair of players may well want that Bane/Catwoman team up book, and i would rather it be there for them than eliminated because some theoretical new player jumping into a high level game with no guidance from the Gm or other players (considering how astoundingly unlikely that scenario is).

I think a more important use of playtesters' time is to make sure that people can create the kind of character they want (assuming it is in the game's milieu) to play intentionally and with relative ease.

I think a discussion can be had as to whether one wants, in a typical action-adventure game, for it to be possible to produce a character unsuited for the combat that tends to be a fairly large part of those (and too big a gap in how capable people are in this adds up to mostly the same thing), but its not an uncommon potential in most character-build games and they somehow get by, so I wouldn't make it a priority concern.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But in the DH system....its beyond "not helping", you are "actually making the enemy stronger". Suddenly its not fun and games for everyone anymore, as your desire to have some fun in teh combat is now actively hurting the rest of the party's chance to win or even to survive. Some groups won't care, they are just there to kick back and go with the flow. But there are players that will REALLY care, I know them, I've played with them. I do think that's a real problem that is worth a mechanical solution.

Though I'll note in most games it may well work out this way in practice if the GM is not actively accounting for it.

This is particularly the case if a game has a standardized method of building encounters that primarily bases it on the number of PCs involved. In either 13 Age or Fragged Empire, and encounter is built primarily based on the number of PCs; if someone proactively builds a character who is incompetent in combat (which is difficult but not impossible in both games) that's effectively leaving a potentially significant amount of extra heavy lifting to other players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I still have not had a chance to read the rules properly.

But on this combat thing - my understanding of 5e D&D is that there is no formal system of turn-taking outside of combat. And presumably that game play is regarded by some 5e players, at least, as satisfactory.

So I don't see why a game that is hoping to appeal to some 5e players needs to have turn-taking as a core principle.

It doesn't. It is just that the game has rules for taking actions and those have weird implications. When you take an action outside of combat in D&D, this doesn't automatically cause a bad thing happening to your party. If it did, people would be far more conservative regarding taking actions.

 

[pemerton]

When you take an action outside of combat in D&D, this doesn't automatically cause a bad thing happening to your party.

Presumably it does if you fail.

 

[Arilyn]

Posters with concerns about fear tokens have actually played, so this feels like an area that could use some tinkering. Has anyone, who is playtesting, run into the problem of players not taking turns because other players have more combatant characters?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Making Daggethrart work should be no problem for an Enpowered DM!

Also, I've subscribed to this topic so I can bring it up whenever people say rules don't matter in TTRPGs

 

[Thomas Shey]

Posters with concerns about fear tokens have actually played, so this feels like an area that could use some tinkering. Has anyone, who is playtesting, run into the problem of players not taking turns because other players have more combatant characters?

Doesn't this assume the gap is large enough to be of concern? If not many people have, the sample size would be small.