RPGs that you feel trip over their own cool ideas

[Umbran]

*54%, factoring in crits.

Thanks for the correction. Makes the points clear, though:

1) You can pretty easily got for a couple of rolls without generating Hope - any expectations otherwise are not a failure on the system's part.

2) Especially with some powers costing more than one Hope, you cannot expect to spend it every roll.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, but "well done" is not well-defined...



(emphasis mine)
Setting aside how Daggerheart doesn't have cleanly defined rounds, you mean?

It should not take you that long to go through four player's worth of actions. I don't know what you're doing, but it doesn't match my experience with the system.



The first part is inaccurate - a character can always take basic actions (interacting with the rules) without having Hope to spend. My very first session trying the game I was having horrible dice luck, and almost every roll was with Fear, but I was taking actions regularly.



You realize that characters start the session with Hope, and can get Hope back by resting? So, if you're walking around with none, that's a choice to not take a rest.

A character will, on average, generate Hope on about 65% of rolls, iirc (whenever the Hope die is equal to or greater than the Fear die). Therefore, if you are trying/expecting to spend on every roll, you are overspending.



Yeah, well, if you are comparing Daggerheart to Draw Steel, you are also comparing a more narratively-focused game to a crunch-focused one, which is kind of apples and oranges.

Which of the two is narrative-focused? I thought they both were.

 

[aramis erak]

Yeah, but "well done" is not well-defined...



(emphasis mine)
Setting aside how Daggerheart doesn't have cleanly defined rounds, you mean?

Actually, there's an optional rule (Action Tokens Optional Rule) which, while not using the term "round" creates a de-facto round. One I've used a lot - 3 actions per PC per round. Doesn't affect the GM's action economy. Does encourage all to participate. I was running 20 to 45 minutes for 5 PCs to all use all three... and we aren't a fast playing group.
If players don't alternate, it could easily wind up being 30 minutes before getting back in a slower group... but that's not RAI.

It should not take you that long to go through four player's worth of actions. I don't know what you're doing, but it doesn't match my experience with the system.

Agreed, same here.

The first part is inaccurate - a character can always take basic actions (interacting with the rules) without having Hope to spend. My very first session trying the game I was having horrible dice luck, and almost every roll was with Fear, but I was taking actions regularly.

Many of the "really kewl «bleep»" is gated behind stress or hope spends

You realize that characters start the session with Hope, and can get Hope back by resting? So, if you're walking around with none, that's a choice to not take a rest.

A character will, on average, generate Hope on about 65% of rolls, iirc (whenever the Hope die is equal to or greater than the Fear die). Therefore, if you are trying/expecting to spend on every roll, you are overspending.

It's actually 78/144, or 54.1666%, inclusive of the 8.333% criticals. (This leaves fear as 66/144 = 45.833%)

 

[Laurefindel]

One system I thought was tripping over its own feet was 7th Sea (1st ed).

In an enthusiastic bit to emulate a “de cape et d’épée” fiction, the system introduced a lot of knacks (skills) such as defence-swigning (for when you swing on the rope of a chandelier), defence-footing (for fighting on ground), defence-boating (for fighting on a rocking boat), defence-balance (when tightrope walking or balancing on rafters) etc. (Going by memory here)

In effect, either you’d distribute your skill points to suck at all of them, or specialize in one that might come up once because the GM took pity on you…

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Yeah, but "well done" is not well-defined...

It was for plenty of others here, i will let you ruminate on that. i am not saying i am gospel truth, but the things i am saying resonate, so its worth considering.

(emphasis mine)
Setting aside how Daggerheart doesn't have cleanly defined rounds, you mean?

It should not take you that long to go through four player's worth of actions. I don't know what you're doing, but it doesn't match my experience with the system.

Just normal roleplay. Most people don't time rounds, i do, since I have to know time when I run in time-limited conventions. DH takes no more or less time than D&D 5e, often about the same.
Each person in 5 players (4 gamers, 1 GM), tend to take about 3 to 8 min per person to to all of = ask wants going on, narrate and roleplay, make mechanical choices, roll, resolve what they rolled, GM react/respond as needed. some people or actions are quicker than others. But this tends to hold true for most all groups.
so with 3 fellows and 1 GM, and no real set "rounds/turns" the spotlight is not really any quicker than any other game to return.

The first part is inaccurate - a character can always take basic actions (interacting with the rules) without having Hope to spend. My very first session trying the game I was having horrible dice luck, and almost every roll was with Fear, but I was taking actions regularly.

Basic actions are not great, and not fun. Special actions are what character classes are for, and can often, but not always, be limited by need for Hope spends. It's not always, but it was often enough we saw problems - players had distinctly overt times when they could not do a thing their class should have been able to do in ANY other rpg as base.
I am sure you saw it too, having horrible rolls as you say. And maybe it mattered to you, and maybe it didnt but let this sink in = when we had bad luck the game rules were not fun. And that is a great indication of poor design, tripping over self, sloppy. DH is not unique in this issue... there are other games that suffer...

You realize that characters start the session with Hope, and can get Hope back by resting? So, if you're walking around with none, that's a choice to not take a rest.

A pointless comment. Any given scene is not "start of entire session". So after merely 1 scene the game falls into problems I describe. And it can do so - well early into that scene if Hope is never gained.... see above for how having no Hope is not fun. never mind its over-normalizing of damage making so many character actions pointlessly similar.

Side note for baseline stress-test: Try playing DH with no hope for a session - it will give a clear view as the no-fun of the system at its core. Which, while not common, can happen to a player. And even if they get Hope a few times in a game session, it may not be enough...

A character will, on average, generate Hope on about 65% of rolls, iirc (whenever the Hope die is equal to or greater than the Fear die). Therefore, if you are trying/expecting to spend on every roll, you are overspending.

This is the very point I am making, thank you for pointing it out. So much of the time a character who has some reliance on Hope spends = can't use their abilities. This goes a long ways towards my point - that the game is not fun when those spends are not there (or at least not there often enough to feel in control of the player - which you seem to not understand - that is the crux of my point that 65% is not good, and not in control and not timed based on play. So we get MANY times when no Hope is there for the cool moment. And saving up becomes tedious...and again... not fun.)

Yeah, well, if you are comparing Daggerheart to Draw Steel, you are also comparing a more narratively-focused game to a crunch-focused one, which is kind of apples and oranges.

This is a typical fallback of defensive failing of evidence, not a fact of truth. In no way is Draw Steel less 'narrative' than Daggerheart. That is simply untrue at all levels. Dread is a narrative focused game, Legends of the Mist is a Narrative game. Apocalypse World is a narrative game. Comparatively, Daggerheart with 100 Combat only powers isn't any more narrative than D&D.

I am just making some comments on how systems don't do great, and DH is very much a "does not do great" core mechanic system.

Maybe it works for some folks, and that's awesome. I love all the diversity in RPGs. But so far, what has been played, shown, and done in online actually play has not yet convinced me what I see in Daggerheart is wrong. And just blasting 'you are doing narrative gaming wrong' to PBTA players we are, will never win me over.

 

[Umbran]

Which of the two is narrative-focused? I thought they both were.

Draw Steel is intended to be a crunchy tactical RPG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Draw Steel is intended to be a crunchy tactical RPG.

So not narrative-focused, but not particularly simulative either? Inspired by 4e?

 

[Umbran]

So not narrative-focused, but not particularly simulative either? Inspired by 4e?

I wouldn't call Draw Steel simulative, no.

It was inspired by the OGL debacle, and so stays away from most D&D design language.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

So not narrative-focused, but not particularly simulative either? Inspired by 4e?

Ehh..... more like if 4e and PBTA had a baby. Is it a crunchy game? yes, but not as much as Pathfinder 2e or GURPS. is it narrative-focused? eh, we need to define that term better. it's got tons of narrative-initiated actions and rules, from its PBTA roots. But it also has lots of explicit effect mechanics.

what is narrative ? because if you asked me, 2nd AD&D could be narrative focused compared to 3e in may ways.
is narrative focused "player states what they want and we roll spicy die to see what happens?" = that does not help us, because that's how Persuasion works in D&D ... so again... what iz?

Are we just talking about character positions in combat? i guess... but that is hardly a good description of a whole rpg ...

 

[Tigris]

So not narrative-focused, but not particularly simulative either? Inspired by 4e?

Its a tactical combat rpg with some pbta inspired mechanics for the non combat part, as in its simple "roll dice + attribute + maybe skill bonus vs DC" but the outcome is not just bonary but has also "yes and", "yes but" and "no and worse".


But many tactical rpgs do this (Beacon, Lancer, Icon etc.) I would not say it makes the narrative. Its not like 13th age which really wants to be more narrative and focused on theater of mind, its just a "we want to do it slightly different than D&D"




Then about the main subcject:

For me its Pathfinder 2 They had 2 "clever ideas" to have the "3 action system" and to have the "universal +-10 crit rule", which both sound elegant, but because of them the rest of the game cannot be elegant at all, just in order to make these 2 things work, and it causes soo many problems.

• Forces you to add huge modifiers to roll together in all cases even when in other games it would not be necassarily since it is clearly a hit/miss (to check if its +-10)
• Extreme level scaling, doubling in power all 2 levels, severly limiting the range of enemies you can use.
• Needing to teduce "normal" amount of monsters by half (compared to D&D 4e from which they have the encounter building), since having 3 actions per enemy can slow down things with too many enemies.
• Making effects look really weak because they are often the weakest possible bonus (+1) feeling unrewarding
• Also having some classes be really bland because they get just a small numerical modifier which is so stronge that it takes up a huge power budget.
• Make spells feal weak because they fail more than 50% (to balance the small chance for the really strong crit)
• Several attacks in the same turn having different modifiers which adds unecessary complexity
• Having really weak 3rd actions which often dont matter
• Making movement often unwanted because you effectively lose an offensive action for it
• Needing to implement many many action tax and "you cant do this" to prevent cool things (like low level effective area attacks) from happening because it would be unbalanced in the system.

what is narrative ?

For me this clear: Can you sweat talk your GM to fart a werewolf to death in combat? Yes? Then its narrative.

And games with strict tactical combat systems are pretty much the opposite of this, especially when they do put the focus on combat like draw steel.