• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Daggerheart Review: The Duality of Robust Combat Mechanics and Freeform Narrative

daggerheart art.png


Daggerheart tries to simultaneously offer a robust set of combat tools driven by high fantasy while also encouraging a collaborative storytelling environment between the player and game master. Although it's too chunky of a game system to really appeal to narrative game enthusiasts, it does offer a unique enough system to stand out more than as just another game trying to out-D&D Dungeons & Dragons. The real question is whether the Critical Role effect will be enough to propel Daggerheart into a rarified space amongst D&D or if it will get lost in the shuffle similar to Darrington Press’s previous RPG Candela Obscura.

Daggerheart is a high-fantasy RPG influenced by the likes of D&D 4th Edition, FFG’s Genesys System, Blades in the Dark, and the Cypher System. It wears most of these influences proudly on its sleeves, calling out the various RPGs that influenced its mechanics in its opening pages. For veteran RPG players, a readthrough of Daggerheart will feel a bit like that one Leonardo DeCaprio meme, as many of the secondary systems in particular feel a bit like elements grafted from other game systems.

While this might sound like a criticism, it’s really not. Many DM have used pieces of various game systems to enhance their own games for decades. So, seeing a worldbuilding system influenced by The Quiet Year or DM interruptions guided by the Cypher System isn’t as much derivative as simply doing something that many of us have already been doing at our own tables. What I can say is that Spenser Starke, lead developer of Daggerheart, clearly has good taste in RPGs, as he’s distilled a lot of great parts of other RPGs and mixed them together for a game that will still feel fresh to a lot of the game’s intended audience.

daggerheart 2.jpg


At the heart of the Daggerheart system is the duality dice, a pair of differently-colored D12s. When making checks, players roll both D12s and add any relevant modifiers (which can be represented as tokens that are tossed alongside the dice). The two dice results are added together to determine success or failure, with additional narrative effects determined by which of the two dice (which are known as the Hope Die and the Fear Die) has the higher result. A roll with Hope results in a narrative benefit of some kind, even when the result is a failure. A roll with Fear results in a narrative setback of some kind, even if the roll is successful.

Hope and Fear also act as one of several kinds of resources players are expected to manage throughout the game. The Hope resource fuels several player abilities, including a new Hope Feature for each class that wasn’t present during playtesting. Players are also expected to track Stress, HP, Armor (which is both a type of equipment and a type of resource), gold, and equipment. Some classes also have additional meta-currency, which requires further tracking. The GM meanwhile uses Fear, which can only be generated by the players through their rolls, as a way to take extra moves or activate certain features. The result is a lot of resource management over the course of a game, in addition to whatever kind of storytelling tracking or mystery solving a GM may want to throw at their party.

Character creation, coincidentally, is a lot more in line with the newest version of D&D 5th Edition, with background, ancestry, class, subclass, and domain all coming together to create a character. All of the aforementioned character options have at least one feature that feeds into the character sheet. Daggerheart solves this immense modularity through the use of cards, which come with the game’s core rulebook in a nifty box and list various kinds of features.

The cards eventually play into the game design itself, with players having a limited hand of domain abilities that they can swap out as they reach higher levels. The cards aren’t technically necessary, as all the information from the cards can also be found in the core rulebook. However, the cards are a lot more handy than writing down all that information, and frankly, the way domains work mean that the cards are more of a necessity than a bonus.

daggerheart 3.jpeg


What will be interesting is how Daggerheart handles the eventual expansion of the game. Will new domain abilities or ancestries also get their own cards? And will they be included with the purchase of a physical book or left as a separate purchase? Given that the cards are one of the more unique aspects to Daggerheart, it will be interesting to see how Critical Role tackles this part of their game.

When playtesting the game last year, my players’ favorite part of the game was the way Daggerheart encouraged players to take an active part in worldbuilding. This starts from Session Zero when players are encouraged to name landmarks on a map (several pre-generated maps and location name suggestions are included in the book and are available to download) and continues through various story and idea prompts embedded into the adventures themselves. The game encourages the players to improvise upon the world, answering their own questions about what an NPC may look like or how the residents of a certain town behave. This in turn is supposed to feed story ideas to the GM to riff off of, building out a more off-the-cuff story that is built more off of vibes than meticulous planning.

At its heart, Daggerheart plays on two diametrically different game concepts. Its combat engine is a resource management system where players are encouraged to build broken character builds to live out overpowered fantasy fulfillment. However, the narrative system is built around a more freeform collaboration between players and GM, where the story grows without much impediment from rules. Much like its core dice mechanic, the duality of Daggerheart works well together, although I think this game will ultimately appeal to D&D players rather than those who enjoy lighter RPG fare.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer


log in or register to remove this ad

The easiest way to deal with it, especially for folks not used to narrative mechanics, is to have the GM be responsible for inviting the players to engage in the narrative aspect of the hope/fear mechanic. That is, most of the time the player can just take their Hope and move on, and the GM can take their fear and their turn, but sometimes the GM can say "You rolled a success with fear while climbing to the top of the tower. What does that look like? What sort of consequence occurs?" Ease them in.
 

Yeah, in doing my research into this, I’m watching the Critical Role Christmas playthrough. And 90% of the time, when Hope and Fear are rolled, Matt Mercer just tells them to gain a Hope point (or he marks a Fear for himself). And they get used at a later point. Occasionally, you can see where he’s using it to inform his description of the outcome, but it is far from every roll.

If a group is really into the “Yes, but’ aspect, I could see them leaning into it more. But right now, it really only seems to be as intrusive as you want it to be.
 

It just comes down to you rolling with a 'yes and' or a 'yes but' or 'no and' 'no but'. Hope and Fear are just an evocative way to say that. That's all it has to be. That's it.
My issue with those systems is that it kinda locks you into a « and » or « but » etc. Typically, these systems discourage you from just ignoring the « and » or « but » if you just don’t feel it. Also, it can create situations where the GM feels they need to justify themselves when they introduce something that goes against the result of the roll, or else the players feel cheated. For some gamemasters, narrative systems are liberating and enabling; for me they are (so far) mostly constraining, and not in a creativity-sparking way. Yet I really want to make it work…

I like the principle of ‘and’ and ‘but’ but I prefer when the frequency is relatively low (like 1-10 à la D&D, and maybe up to 1-in-6). But having them on 100% of rolls (considering that criticals are their own kind of special results) sounds exhausting.

This can be mitigated when a game gives clear instructions on positive/negative riders, like « if you roll Hope choose one of the following 5 options », especially if one of those options is easily passe-partout like « you look cool while doing it ».

I’m curious to see the end result though. I just hope that in trying to make a system that works for everyone, DH doesn’t end up making a system that doesn’t work for anyone.
 

I don't think Daggerheart has a built in mechanism to solve the problem of 3 different players wanting to play 3 different kinds of campaigns, if that is what you are asking. It is still collaborative, and like most RPGs it asks the players to create characters that will work as an ensemble.
Not directly but it does have the tools for them to talk that problem out and make a 4th option that is a mesh.

Any group can do that, but Daggerheart explicitly intends that.

Session 0 in Daggerheart isn't just make characters and talk safety tools, it is also where the PLAYERS make the setting by altering the Campaign Frame the GM presented to them.

One way to do that, seen at least in the liveplays, is to let each player make X number of elements to add in. But it's also a moment for them to discus, adjust, alter, bounce ideas, and so on.

The process of having players inside the process of building the campaign won't fullproof solve the issue of players having different issues, but it will make them aware of and put effort into overcoming / resolving that issue rather than facing their ideas off in a competition over who gets to play their thing. Ideally, it will result in them making a hybrid that meets the overall group interest.
 
Last edited:

Not directly but it does have the tools for them to talk that problem out and make a 4th option that is a mesh.

Any group can do that, but Daggerheart explicitly intends that.

Session 0 in Daggerheart isn't just make characters and talk safety tools, it is also where the PLAYERS make the setting by altering the Campaign Frame the GM presented to them.

One way to do that, seen at least in the liveplays, is to let each player make X number of elements to add in. But it's also a moment for them to discus, adjust, alter, bounce ideas, and so on.

The process of having players inside the process of building the campaign won't fullproof solve the issue of players having different issues, but it will make them aware of and put effort into overcoming / resolving that issue rather than facing their ideas off in a competition over who gets to play their thing. Ideally, it will result in them making a hybrid that meets the overall group interest.
Sure. Fate has been doing this for a couple decades, and Fate wasn't the first.

People need to read the inspirations section at the beginning of Daggerheart and remember that the game is a melding of many great ideas that have been proven to make games better over long use and iteration.
 

My issue with those systems is that it kinda locks you into a « and » or « but » etc. Typically, these systems discourage you from just ignoring the « and » or « but » if you just don’t feel it. Also, it can create situations where the GM feels they need to justify themselves when they introduce something that goes against the result of the roll, or else the players feel cheated. For some gamemasters, narrative systems are liberating and enabling; for me they are (so far) mostly constraining, and not in a creativity-sparking way. Yet I really want to make it work…

I like the principle of ‘and’ and ‘but’ but I prefer when the frequency is relatively low (like 1-10 à la D&D, and maybe up to 1-in-6). But having them on 100% of rolls (considering that criticals are their own kind of special results) sounds exhausting.

This can be mitigated when a game gives clear instructions on positive/negative riders, like « if you roll Hope choose one of the following 5 options », especially if one of those options is easily passe-partout like « you look cool while doing it ».

I’m curious to see the end result though. I just hope that in trying to make a system that works for everyone, DH doesn’t end up making a system that doesn’t work for anyone.
Has there ever been an RPG that didn't work for anyone? I mean aside from actual ones with serious mechanical problems, which definitely isn't the case here.

Re hope/fear I feel like you're confusing there being essentially five results possible from a roll with having to "bend" a binary pass/fail roll. It does take a little more engagement with any system which isn't binary pass/fail, but on the flip side you roll less often in Daggerheart than D&D so I don't think the actual DM load is higher. Once I've run it I will see if I feel the same way.
 

My own nerd discussion group is tripping up over the Hope/Fear thing. "Not everything players roll for has hope or fear built in!" I'm like... right. Hope and Fear aren't necessarily diegetic here. It just comes down to you rolling with a 'yes and' or a 'yes but' or 'no and' 'no but'. Hope and Fear are just an evocative way to say that. That's all it has to be. That's it.
Fair enough, but if you are using terms like that I'd rather be diagetic. Otherwise, why not just say "yes and", etc?
 

My own nerd discussion group is tripping up over the Hope/Fear thing. "Not everything players roll for has hope or fear built in!" I'm like... right. Hope and Fear aren't necessarily diegetic here. It just comes down to you rolling with a 'yes and' or a 'yes but' or 'no and' 'no but'. Hope and Fear are just an evocative way to say that. That's all it has to be. That's it.
I haven’t purchased the rules yet, but I’m assuming there’s some version of “Let it ride” so players are only rolling when something is at stake? No bunches of random Perception rolls.
 

Sure. Fate has been doing this for a couple decades, and Fate wasn't the first.

People need to read the inspirations section at the beginning of Daggerheart and remember that the game is a melding of many great ideas that have been proven to make games better over long use and iteration.
It is a melding of ideas from several different systems some people like and that they believe improve their games. The way you worded this response is very "this is the objective truth that everyone should be using".
 

Into the Woods

Related Articles

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top