Daggerheart Discussion

[aramis erak]

Huh. No warriors, wizards, or druids. The simplest class and probably two most complex.

At least the DH wizard isn't weirdly locked away from healing spells

Wizards are straightforward in DH.
Druids and Rangers are the most complex. And neither is very complex.

 

[zakael19]

Wizards are complex for Daggerheart in that they have the most domain decision space (codex) along with Bards and subclass complexity (one subclass is interacting with the Vault mechanics & opportunity cost for experiences; the other has some unique stuff going on with Hope balances & extra damage triggers).

 

[Agamon]

Wizards are straightforward in DH.

Straightforward, sure, but they do get a lot of options right at L1 with Codex and School of Knowledge getting a bonus domain card.

 

[Reynard]

I am actually curious myself what Daggerheart looks and plays like when you force a semi-linear adventure structure. Since my D&D 2024 campaign is finally ending, I think I am going to develop a "quest" style adventure for DH and just see what happens. Does "play to find out" break when you know the main story beats?

 

[Agamon]

I am actually curious myself what Daggerheart looks and plays like when you force a semi-linear adventure structure. Since my D&D 2024 campaign is finally ending, I think I am going to develop a "quest" style adventure for DH and just see what happens. Does "play to find out" break when you know the main story beats?

Play to find out means play to see what the story is. If the story is already planned out, then you're playing to see how you get from a to b. Not a bad thing, but different.

 

[Reynard]

Play to find out means play to see what the story is. If the story is already planned out, then you're playing to see how you get from a to b. Not a bad thing, but different.

Emphasis mine.

How is this not still playing to find out?

So, there's this quest. This Dark Lord's magic ring must be hurled into the fiery pit from which it was made. And it is a very long walk from here to there, with many dangers and some safe havens along the way.

Does the fact that there is a end goal make it suddenly not "play to find out"? I don't think so. If it has a defined setting, and the players decide to tie their characters to various locales, factions and NPCs in the setting mean that it is suddenly not "play to find out"? I don't think so. Otherwise, the only "play to find out" would be a purely improv, invent as you go game with neither a defined setting nor defined characters.

 

[Scribe]

Personally, I don't see how play to find out breaks just because there are touchpoints during a planned quest. I thought that was covered in the book even but I could be mixing that up with a blog or something.

 

[Reynard]

Personally, I don't see how play to find out breaks just because there are touchpoints during a planned quest. I thought that was covered in the book even but I could be mixing that up with a blog or something.

I may be mixing up my own thoughts against the meaning of the term as defined in AW. Later when I am home I will look it up, just to refresh my memory if nothing else. The quick search/AI overview does seem to support @Agamon here.

 

[Agamon]

I think I mention a ways back in the thread that I'm playing a TotV game where I know the start and end of arcs and we play to see what happens in between. Honestly, I never once thought it was a narrative style game lol, so that why I'm differentiating here.

In my DH game, I prep what I think could likely happen next session, and think even more about what else might happen so I'm not caught too flat-footed. But this is how I think of "playing to find out" because none of us have any clue precisely what's next.

 

[aramis erak]

Personally, I don't see how play to find out breaks just because there are touchpoints during a planned quest. I thought that was covered in the book even but I could be mixing that up with a blog or something.

It's a large difference in degree. Adding touchpoints seriously trims the outcome tree.