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]

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.

Which is a problem in a narrative game. The GM's job is to "account for it" -- whatever "it" may be -- in a way that helps the PCs propel the story forward (in the usual jigs and jags associated with relying on randomizers).

Let's say your DH party looks something like Buffy and the Scoobs -- one combat monster and a bunch of much less capable niche roles. If presented with that as a GM in DH, it is your job to make the combats appropriate to that group (which probably means a big bad and some minions, or more interestingly some stuff to fight along with some other things that need done at the same time). There is NO imperative to make sure every PC has equal combat spotlight time because that is not what the players built as a party. By building Buffy and the Scoobs, they told you what they wanted to do. Listen to them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is a problem in a narrative game. The GM's job is to "account for it" -- whatever "it" may be -- in a way that helps the PCs propel the story forward (in the usual jigs and jags associated with relying on randomizers).

Let's say your DH party looks something like Buffy and the Scoobs -- one combat monster and a bunch of much less capable niche roles. If presented with that as a GM in DH, it is your job to make the combats appropriate to that group (which probably means a big bad and some minions, or more interestingly some stuff to fight along with some other things that need done at the same time). There is NO imperative to make sure every PC has equal combat spotlight time because that is not what the players built as a party. By building Buffy and the Scoobs, they told you what they wanted to do. Listen to them.

The usual problem is making sure all the players understand that, too. Otherwise whatever you put out can end up misaimed--the modest but not completely useless combatant goes after the BB while the Buffy equivalent starts mopping up mooks. And yes, this is absolutely something I've seen happen. You really have to make sure (as I did when I ran Scion 1e) that they understand how this has to work out to work right.

Honestly, it doesn't have to be a purely narrative game for these problems can come up at both ends of the table; I've seen it in pretty trad games that didn't hardcode combat capability.

 

[Imaro]

Which is a problem in a narrative game. The GM's job is to "account for it" -- whatever "it" may be -- in a way that helps the PCs propel the story forward (in the usual jigs and jags associated with relying on randomizers).

Let's say your DH party looks something like Buffy and the Scoobs -- one combat monster and a bunch of much less capable niche roles. If presented with that as a GM in DH, it is your job to make the combats appropriate to that group (which probably means a big bad and some minions, or more interestingly some stuff to fight along with some other things that need done at the same time). There is NO imperative to make sure every PC has equal combat spotlight time because that is not what the players built as a party. By building Buffy and the Scoobs, they told you what they wanted to do. Listen to them.

Just a quick note... in the Buffy rpg this disparity is actually accounted for via meta-currency...which IMO is a much better solution than having the DM try to account for all possible builds that could exist in a play group.

 

[Reynard]

Just a quick note... in the Buffy rpg this disparity is actually accounted for via meta-currency...which IMO is a much better solution than having the DM try to account for all possible builds that could exist in a play group.

Buffy isn't a narrative game, tho, so it needs a purely mechanical solution.

 

[Reynard]

The usual problem is making sure all the players understand that, too. Otherwise whatever you put out can end up misaimed--the modest but not completely useless combatant goes after the BB while the Buffy equivalent starts mopping up mooks. And yes, this is absolutely something I've seen happen. You really have to make sure (as I did when I ran Scion 1e) that they understand how this has to work out to work right.

Honestly, it doesn't have to be a purely narrative game for these problems can come up at both ends of the table; I've seen it in pretty trad games that didn't hardcode combat capability.

I agree. Everybody needs to be on the same page in any RPG, but it is especially true in a narrative game where everyone is expected to pull their weight toward a satisfying story for all.

 

[Imaro]

Buffy isn't a narrative game, tho, so it needs a purely mechanical solution.

What do you mean by "narrative" game??

Edit: I understand narrative mechanics... which are exactly what Buffy has to deal with the Scoobies vs Slayer disparity, but you seem to be calling out a narrative game as something different...

 

[Reynard]

What do you mean by "narrative" game??

Edit: I understand narrative mechanics... which are exactly what Buffy has to deal with the Scoobies vs Slayer disparity, but you seem to be calling out a narrative game as something different...

I'm going to summon @pemerton and @overgeeked to explain, I think.

 

[pemerton]

What do you mean by "narrative" game??

Edit: I understand narrative mechanics... which are exactly what Buffy has to deal with the Scoobies vs Slayer disparity, but you seem to be calling out a narrative game as something different...

I'm going to summon @pemerton and @overgeeked to explain, I think.

From upthread

Well, @Paul Farquhar means - by "narrative RPG" - a RPG in which the GM presents the players with one or more stories to engage in (via the play of their PCs). This is the classic post-DL style of RPGing.

The contrast would be (say) relatively plot-free sandboxing/hex-crawling, or classic dungeon-crawling.

There is no "pawn stance" in Paul Farquhar's game.

Vincent Baker says, in the Apocalypse World acknowledgements, that "The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards." But "narrativism" is a technical term. I don't think that "narrative" is. For instance, in a recent thread @Reynard used the phrase "narrative mechanics" to refer to a type of mechanic of which almost none is found in Apocalypse World or Prince Valiant, despite these two games being poster-children for narrativist RPGing.

I don't know if @Reynard means the same by "narrative game" as does Paul Farquhar. I also can't comment on whether DaggerHeart is intended to be played as a narrative game in that sense.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

This is a scenario where a situation is hidden from the users vs in their faces.

You are correct that often DMs would adjust encounters for the number of PCs, but that info is hidden from the players. All they see is Monster Squad X is out to get them. But the action token system is right in their face. They see PC X take an action, do nothing in combat, and yet slap down a big old token that the GM will happily pick up to smack them around.

So ultimately while you are correct that the systems do penalize groups with non-combat characters, it isn't true in "feeling", whereas players can clearly seen how their incompetence let the monsters get more tokens to hurt them. This kind of perception is important in game design and a key part of playtesting, how a user base feels about a game is just as important as how they actually play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think "the GM will sort it out somehow" is that great solution to potential design issues. A good GM might, an inexperienced won't. And for both it would be better if they wouldn't have to. I also don't think that "it is narrative" is really a free licence for dumping design issues on the GM's lap this way.