Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[FrozenNorth]

The other option would be doing a 4e skill challenge thing and scoping an easy/standard/hard check by tier, probably like 10/13/16 for T1? I’m generally a fan of the 4e methodology of “make challenges on-par with tier of play and succeed automatically at what used to be hard” instead of static DCs. The Environmental scaling suggest this as well.

This is only my experience, but I have found myself leaning hard on the narrative setting the difficulty level.

Sure a T1 character is unlikely to succeed on the Diff 20 roll, but they have a 45% chance of rolling with Hope, that still advances the story somewhat favourably.

One result that I use frequently on a FwH is « you fail, but your next attempt has advantage ». It gives characters a sense of progress without undermining that the world is independent of the characters and that some things are just more difficult to do.

Plus, I find it encourages players to invoke their experiences and help each other.

 

[zakael19]

This is only my experience, but I have found myself leaning hard on the narrative setting the difficulty level.

Well, the game itself suggests not doing that; using ADV/DisADV to show harder and easier rather then tinkering with the Diff. But it’s also all over the place. Adversaries and Environments scale on their own logic by tier via 2d12 & modifier math, completely divorced from the “by 5s” tables.

The game has both objective difficulties (which id say are a vestige of D&D design), and tier-appropriate-scaled difficulties (which feel more in line with 4e or other systems). I much prefer the latter, and use the narrative to increase the fictional scope and drive of what you’re tackling as you tier up.

 

[Reynard]

Well, the game itself suggests not doing that; using ADV/DisADV to show harder and easier rather then tinkering with the Diff. But it’s also all over the place. Adversaries and Environments scale on their own logic by tier via 2d12 & modifier math, completely divorced from the “by 5s” tables.

The game has both objective difficulties (which id say are a vestige of D&D design), and tier-appropriate-scaled difficulties (which feel more in line with 4e or other systems). I much prefer the latter, and use the narrative to increase the fictional scope and drive of what you’re tackling as you tier up.

The problem with tier difficulties is that it means the PCs never actually get any better at anything.

 

[zakael19]

The problem with tier difficulties is that it means the PCs never actually get any better at anything.

This is the 4e argument. Do you think they never get better at hitting adversaries as those scale? Or environments, as those do? Or are you reflecting that as you get cooler at stuff what you’re going up against is harder in turn?

Note that the math does not seem to account for the ability to bring in +3 experiences or ADV, its scaling off 2d12+average tier modifier primarily based on my analysis. Also you have nearly double the chance to crit in DH then most games.

Edit: if you want your players to feel progression, give them some T-1 threshold opponents once they have on-tier weapons. They’re gonna demolish them.

 

[Reynard]

This is the 4e argument. Do you think they never get better at hitting adversaries as those scale? Or environments, as those do? Or are you reflecting that as you get cooler at stuff what you’re going up against is harder in turn?

Note that the math does not seem to account for the ability to bring in +3 experiences or ADV, its scaling off 2d12+average tier modifier primarily based on my analysis. Also you have nearly double the chance to crit in DH then most games.

Edit: if you want your players to feel progression, give them some T-1 threshold opponents once they have on-tier weapons. They’re gonna demolish them.

What I mean is that if your difficulties scale with YOUR tier, your probabilities stay static. Monsters and environments having tiers don't lock players out of that content any more than CR does in D&D -- so long as the GM isn't always making "level appropriate challenges" regardless of what the PCs do.

 

[zakael19]

What I mean is that if your difficulties scale with YOUR tier, your probabilities stay static. Monsters and environments having tiers don't lock players out of that content any more than CR does in D&D -- so long as the GM isn't always making "level appropriate challenges" regardless of what the PCs do.

I don’t understand your argument here. We’re talking about doing the math for a consistent(ish) 70% success chance for a “regular” challenge so you can just narrate the fictional situation and have a consistent number to roll against (and use adv/disadv as appropriate). Again, this is literally the 4e complaint; yet this is also how DH designs its adversaries and environments. Those scale in complexity, fiction, and difficulty along with tier.

 

[Reynard]

I don’t understand your argument here. We’re talking about doing the math for a consistent(ish) 70% success chance for a “regular” challenge so you can just narrate the fictional situation and have a consistent number to roll against (and use adv/disadv as appropriate). Again, this is literally the 4e complaint; yet this is also how DH designs its adversaries and environments. Those scale in complexity, fiction, and difficulty along with tier.

I must not be explaining myself.

If the PCs' tier sets the Difficulty Number (rather than the tier of the adversary or environment) then PCs effectively never get better.

 

[zakael19]

Ok. Not worth continuing this discussion path, like I said that is the 4e detractors take on the concept (which DH uses in two phases of its design).

 

[Reynard]

Ok. Not worth continuing this discussion path, like I said that is the 4e detractors take on the concept (which DH uses in two phases of its design).

I am not sure what this discussion has to do with 4E, or why it seems to be a proble.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In last night's game I noticed that my players were pretty much always flush with Hope, even during combats. I can't tell if they are being careful with their spends, if there aren't enough things to spend Hope on, or if I am calling for too many rolls and therefore letting them build up too much hope.

My fear seemed about right. I never ran out but I was usually down to 2 or 3.

How are folks finding Hope and Fear pools working out in actual play?

I find it really varies from session to session. I have sessions where the players are constantly flush with hope and steamrolling fights and others where they are constantly on the back foot.

DH can feel very swingy. The party could easily go 4 times in a row without any villain acting and since combats are fairly quick, this could mean combats that are essentially over immediately after they start.

My recommendations:
1. Use Reaction Rolls and Group Rolls. These use player resources, including Hope, but don’t generate Hope or Fear.
2. Throw in some tough Difficulties and telegraph them to your players. You want to convince the fanatical cultist to identify his hideout. Roll Diff 20 presence check. Players will invoke Experiences and Help each other out.
3. Use your Fear pool to manage their Hope pool: spend Fear liberally with Hard moves when they are flush, lay off or use softer moves when they aren’t.
4. Remember that players don’t have perfect vision into the game. They may be hoarding Hope because they fear a major battle. They can still be enjoying themselves/finding the adventure challenging even if sitting on a pile of Hope.
5. Don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s pretty easy to adjust on the fly in DH. If they blow through one session riding high on Hope, next session a series of bad rolls can leave them scrambling.

Overall, I really like the Fear pool mechanic. I like the fact that it gives me a lot of control to pump on the gas or brakes depending on how the party is doing, without it feeling like the enemies themselves are going easy on them.