Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[darjr]

Alan Tucker and Incredible Creatures is hosting a virtual convention this weekend. Creature Con. See details in this kickstarter update. https://www.kickstarter.com/project...res-adversaries-for-daggerheart/posts/4483396

 

[overgeeked]

I think you are confusing "add an adversary's experience to a roll." with compelling one. They may absolutely add an adversary's experience to a roll with fear. They have 0 mechanics to touch a players experiences which are by nature positive and additive bonus available to use by the player for a cost of hope.

From the book
You can spend a Fear to:
• Interrupt the players to make a move.
• Make an additional GM move.
• Spotlight an additional adversary during a battle.
• Use an adversary’s Fear feature.
• Use an environment’s Fear feature.
• Add an adversary’s Experience to a roll.

You’re right by RAW, but I don’t see why a referee couldn’t spend a fear to gain a bonus based on a PC’s experience. Or give a penalty to a PC.

 

[aramis erak]

GM Move: "Use a PC's Backstory Against Them" / "Show the Collateral Damage" / "Reveal an Unwelcome Truth" can lean into an Experience, but isn't quite a Compel from how I understand that mechanic.

Note though "Make an additional GM move" is extremely broad.

Not particularly, theres a single column list of them. None of them actually allow invoking experiences negatively.

 

[aramis erak]

You’re right by RAW, but I don’t see why a referee couldn’t spend a fear to gain a bonus based on a PC’s experience. Or give a penalty to a PC.

Because it's a violation of the conceptual basis of the rules. In other words, a d«bleep»-move. And if one is of that mindset where that doesn't matter, Daggerheart probably isn't the best game to use.

Even using the PC's backstory against them is supposed to be nearly the last option... it's the second most severe GM move listed on DH CB 152, and that has nothing about experiences; it's about people or things from their backstory manifesting in new threats or plots. In general, outside conflict scenes, one is supposed to start at the soft (top) end of the list going down it until one that fits the narrative is found.

Also note: Adversary, in the rules, equals D&D's "Monster" and most games' "NPC"... any non-PC character capable of hostile action (regardless of inclination nor type of action) is an Adversary. PC's never are "Adversaries"...
Adding an Adversary's Experience to a roll is the same as a PC adding an experience to the PC's roll... the bonus is to the character using it, in either case, not a penalty to the other.

 

[zakael19]

Not particularly, theres a single column list of them. None of them actually allow invoking experiences negatively.

I was referring to how “make an additional GM move” is “do anything the game suggests a GM can do.” Thus what you can spend fear on is actually “everything the game allows you to do if it feels dramatically appropriate in this moment.”

Additionally, whenever the spotlight pivots back to the GM they can make a move as hard as they want so long as it doesn’t negate the roll. Again, I don’t think it ever rises to the “Compel” level, but I might ask the player - hey, you’ve got the experience “stand up for what’s right” or “never back down” or whatever, are you going to let X happen?

 

[aramis erak]

I was referring to how “make an additional GM move” is “do anything the game suggests a GM can do.” Thus what you can spend fear on is actually “everything the game allows you to do if it feels dramatically appropriate in this moment.”

Additionally, whenever the spotlight pivots back to the GM they can make a move as hard as they want so long as it doesn’t negate the roll. Again, I don’t think it ever rises to the “Compel” level, but I might ask the player - hey, you’ve got the experience “stand up for what’s right” or “never back down” or whatever, are you going to let X happen?

Those exemplars are fine for Fate, where the negative aspect is compel-worthy, but never back down is something I'd challenge the player on in char gen/advancement, as being relatively irrelevant, given the lack of compels in general, even as reaction rolls.
(the rest isn't at Zakael)

The reason, IMO, a compell is a D«bleep»-move in DH to compel is because it robs the player of agency AND fails to reward them for that. That kind of agency loss violates the best practices of DH.

Page 142-43 GM Principles and 144-145 GM Best Practices both call for constant collaboration. (SRD pages 63-64)

I'd argue that a compel use actually violates the "pitfalls to avoid"... as it both undermines the hero, and in essence, leaves no room for their expected choice of attributes. It also smacks of singular solution.

Interestingly, on the discord within the last week, discussion turned to letting Experiences be used in Defense, adding to evasion/difficulty.

In Fate, I don't see the compel as a problem, as the players get paid for the compel, and, unless the GM lied to them, they're part of the up front discussion of Aspects.
There's no warning in character gen, no benefit to the player, and only rarely is it really a story benefit to a compel.

Using their past against them is clearly focused upon bringing in adversaries or items, not compelling, if one reads the full text in the rulebook (it's not in the SRD), it's clearly not a compel...

USE A PC’S BACKSTORY AGAINST THEM
Integrating a player’s backstory into your move can have a huge impact on the PC and make the story much more personal to them. Maybe someone from their past shows up, a mistake they made long ago catches up with them, or the scene parallels a past experience, giving them the chance to make a different choice. Grounding the move in a character’s history ensures their next decisions matter all the more to them

In fact, nowhere in the rules do I see anything encouraging limiting player agency by anything other than current story state.

 

[zakael19]

Those exemplars are fine for Fate, where the negative aspect is compel-worthy, but never back down is something I'd challenge the player on in char gen/advancement, as being relatively irrelevant, given the lack of compels in general, even as reaction rolls.

"never back down" is a fantastic Experience? Says a lot about your background + really usable, not unlike a lot of the "phrase" or "characteristics" experiences.

 

[Reynard]

I'd argue that a compel use actually violates the "pitfalls to avoid"... as it both undermines the hero, and in essence, leaves no room for their expected choice of attributes. It also smacks of singular solution.

"Undermine the hero" is NOT a prescribed move. You are thinking of "undermine a success" aka turning a success with fear into a failure.

There is nothing in DH that suggests experiences cannot be employed by the GM. At the very least, an experience can "provide a golden opportunity" in the right fictional circumstance.

I would suggest that if you are so powerfully opposed to the GM making life hard for the PCs, you might want to stay with 5E.

 

[aramis erak]

"never back down" is a fantastic Experience? Says a lot about your background + really usable, not unlike a lot of the "phrase" or "characteristics" experiences.

It's great if your GM uses forced actions. Otherwise, it's little use; in DH core, only for the forced movement effect resistance rolls triggered by certain Adversary abilities. Not totally worthless, but not a mechanically good choice.

I'd much rather see the player revise it into a more broad "Strong Willed" — which has non-resist effects. Or, as one player chose, "Relentless." That one was weak, and the player and I agree it can't be used as a first strike... he only uses it when his character is wounded or defending another against long odds. Unfortunately, the point where it storywise fits best is when it's unavailable - when all hope is lost.

Given the low number of experiences, I want them broad, and for players to have both offensive and defensive use for each.

Courtly was used in a social vs a Minor Noble this session; only its second use, but in both cases, it just happened to be just enough for success...

 

[aramis erak]

"Undermine the hero" is NOT a prescribed move. You are thinking of "undermine a success" aka turning a success with fear into a failure.

There is nothing in DH that suggests experiences cannot be employed by the GM. At the very least, an experience can "provide a golden opportunity" in the right fictional circumstance.

I would suggest that if you are so powerfully opposed to the GM making life hard for the PCs, you might want to stay with 5E.

No, I think I'll just reject any advice of yours since you see things in the rules I do not, and have an aggressive anti-player streak in your advice.