Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[doctorbadwolf]

Depending on how powerful one wants them to be, one could make them behave as specialisations. If you pick that level up, then you choose if you want the one for you class or an available dragonmark.

If I were running a campaigned focused on them, I’d add Themes (using factions and some other special Eberron stuff like being self-forged or having a world-changing invention that only you have, etc). If not but players wanted them available I’d probably make “Houseborne” a community and you pick which house and each has a basic thing it gives advantage to, and then when you could multiclass there would be “Greater Mark of X” options that work like an MC for a class.

Maaaaybe allow taking a Mark in place of subclass but that’s a hefty homebrew in terms of balancing.

 

[Reynard]

I will be interested to see what the first real "old school" style dungeon delving 3rd party Frame will be and how they'll try to make it work.

 

[stormwriter]

I will be interested to see what the first real "old school" style dungeon delving 3rd party Frame will be and how they'll try to make it work.

I would love to see one of those as well. Old-school dungeon turns, hexcrawl, resource management, random encounters, reaction/morale, emergent procedural sandbox, etc. A Keep on the Borderlands/Mystara campaign frame. No idea if those things would work well or not.

 

[Reynard]

I would love to see one of those as well. Old-school dungeon turns, hexcrawl, resource management, random encounters, reaction/morale, emergent procedural sandbox, etc. A Keep on the Borderlands/Mystara campaign frame. No idea if those things would work well or not.

I don't think you can turn DH into an OSR game. But I do think someone could build a dungeon-focused campaign frame that FEELS like heroic fantasy in the megadungeon.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Over the years, I’ve explored a number of systems and settings, each offering something valuable but rarely aligning with everything I was looking for at once. I eventually moved beyond looking for a “perfect” system and focused more on adapting what was available to suit the kind of experience I enjoy most.

Daggerheart caught my attention not because I was actively seeking a new game, but because it seemed to bring together a lot of the design sensibilities I’ve appreciated across multiple systems—narrative freedom, mechanical clarity, and a focus on player experience. From what I’ve seen so far, it feels like it’s built to support a wide range of play styles while still staying coherent and intentional in its design.

I haven’t received the core book yet, but between the SRD, discussions, and preview materials, I’ve seen enough to feel confident in the system’s potential. What drew me in most was the structure around Campaign Frames—not just as standalone scenarios, but as proof of concept that the system is meant to be applied flexibly across different themes and tones. It offers structure without imposing a fixed setting or narrow play expectation.

One of the more compelling ideas I see running through Daggerheart is the way it centers the experience of the players at the table, rather than abstract timelines or resource accounting within the world. That design principle shows up in how narrative authority is distributed, how mechanics like Hope and Fear shape outcomes, and how resolution flows from the dice in ways that support rather than interrupt the story.

I initially wasn’t sure what to make of the core mechanics. The 2d12 system looked unusual, and I wasn’t convinced it would offer much new. But the way Hope and Fear function as narrative drivers—rather than just modifiers—completely reframed my understanding. Initiative, turn-taking, and momentum are embedded in the flow of the game itself, not bolted on as separate structures. It’s an elegant integration.

Experiences are another standout. Instead of relying on a static, predefined skill list, players define what matters to their characters and bring those traits into play proactively. It’s not just about having bonuses; it’s about making declarations and reinforcing character identity through action and justification. That kind of engagement feels more personal and grounded.

Mechanically, I appreciate how the system still uses numbers in a way that feels meaningful but doesn’t spiral into escalating modifiers or layered complexity. It’s accessible without being shallow.

The Stress mechanic was intuitive from the start—it provides a tradeoff that players can leverage to shift outcomes in critical moments, at a cost. It encourages risk and agency without punishment, which helps drive tension in a constructive way.

Also, as someone who appreciates physical design in board games, I like how Daggerheart uses cards and tactile elements to support play. Managing information through physical pieces feels cleaner and more intuitive than tracking everything through character sheets and numerical adjustments.

I’m also glad the game is designed around ten levels of progression. That’s a scale that feels realistic for long-term play while still offering room for development and payoff. It keeps things manageable without feeling truncated.

The main question I’m sitting with now is how modular the Domains are. Can they be customized or replaced? Are they meant to be fixed pillars, or open to reinterpretation depending on setting and tone?

Either way, this is one of the first systems in a long time that speaks directly to how I want to approach running and playing games. More importantly, it got me feeling excited about the prospect of doing it again, or at least thinking about it.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think you can turn DH into an OSR game. But I do think someone could build a dungeon-focused campaign frame that FEELS like heroic fantasy in the megadungeon.

I would almost want a Supply/Resource track on the character sheet that you could threaten as the GM using GM moves. This is something that you can do in a number of PbtA games: e.g., Stonetop, Root, Ironsworn, etc.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So IMO it’s more accurate to say that Fear is what gives you the limited ability to act like a D&D DM.

Yes, though considering you also have essentially the opportunity to do the same on any failed roll, any time the PCs give you a "Golden Opportunity" and so on, and you tend to have a Fear overflow rather than underflow, I don't think it's very limiting in practice. Especially as it sort of removes any requirement to be even-handed on those moves!

I've been known to refer to Fear as my "shoulder demon"; I get far more Fear than I'd consider it fair to make things up in a normal D&D game.

Yes! I was feeling like I had so much Fear I could much more aggressively make up "unfortunate" stuff for the PCs to deal with than in D&D or the like. Like, in D&D and similar, I generally feel like I have to be "fair" - i.e. the PC walks into the area of full of "resting" undead, and I need to start making Perception checks and so on to see if they wake up blah blah blah boring! Lots of rolling, often not much actually happening. Whereas in a similar situation with DH, I just spend a Fear and "Eff it, we ball!" and the skeletons wake up because I paid for them to!

And the players seemed very accepting of this! I know if I'd done that in D&D or the like I might have got a polite or somewhat begging "But don't you have to make some sort of check? My PC was being very quiet!" and I might even have to OOC explain something. But drop one of the dark red fear tokens I have and suddenly they're "okay, I guess he paid!".

Even then I was tending to run into Fear overflow pretty often!

 

[Elvish Lore]

Ok, ran the game for the first time.

An incredibly positive experience for me personally and for pretty much everyone at the table (6 players).

A noteworthy thing:

Combat was way more engaging for everyone at the table compared to the usual d20 slog I go through with 5e or P2e - everyone was way more at the edge of their seat than the usual 'kickback and wait your turn'. This was significant and awesome.

I found that relying only on them stepping up to volunteer actions resulted in game play that sometimes felt a bit limp or slow-paced. I 'directed' about half the time and asked specific players what they were doing in that moment or asked leading questions e.g. 'the creature ripped open the side of the carriage, you're inside - what do you do?". That combo worked really well.

By the end, the 4 players who didn't own the game said they wanted to buy it. (and, posting on our Discord later in the day, bemoaned that they couldn't find any copies at local gaming stores - a good problem, at least temporarily, for this rpg to have).

 

[overgeeked]

I would almost want a Supply/Resource track on the character sheet that you could threaten as the GM using GM moves. This is something that you can do in a number of PbtA games: e.g., Stonetop, Root, Ironsworn, etc.

There's a lot of different ways you could do things. Lots of different systems and subsystems to borrow from in the OSR and NSR scenes. Shadowdark's torch timer is one. You could use the in-built countdowns quite easily as light, resources, timers, etc. Spirit of 77 has something called Heat. The more you go around being violent the more the Man pays attention and puts the Heat on you. Heat as in cops. That could easily be reworked slightly to be the inhabitants of the dungeon being alerted to your presence and coming after you.

 

[Reynard]

One thing that a player brought up after our first session was the idea of incorporating Aspects into play -- specifically the ability of players to create temporary aspects in the scene. I am thinking that you could do it on a successwith hope by spending that hope, and as long as it is true, others can activate it for a hope like an experience.

Do you think that would work out okay? Is a hope too costly, or not costly enough? Would DH benefit from the use of aspects in this way?