Daggerheart General Thread [+]

Kichwas · Monday at 8:36 PM

Reynard said:
Something that is bugging me slightly and I am not even sure why: over on the daggerheart subreddit, tons of people are going all in on homebrew and houserules while admitting to not having played the game at all.

That one's a bit of a culture shock for me coming from Pathfinder 2E, but over in the D&D 5E world it feels like they take away your 'DM Card' if you don't have at least 73 pages of houserules BEFORE you even buy the DMG.

Critical Role also, hasn't really been following the rules for years from what I gather reading comments. So it's fanbase may have no experience or expectation of ever even thinking that wat.

And lastly, Darrington themselves are going all in on being pro-homebrew. Both in what you run and how you look a the rules. For 'homebrew' the campaign frames and comments about re-styling things are written in a 'make the flavor your own' mindset.

For houserules, I think that just carries over with the flavor of the system and the fact that they had day one playtest material for 'new stuff' which kind of makes the point for the idea of it being a system they expect to be modified often and a lot.

UnplayedRanger · Monday at 8:53 PM

Reynard said:
Something that is bugging me slightly and I am not even sure why: over on the daggerheart subreddit, tons of people are going all in on homebrew and houserules while admitting to not having played the game at all.

I know that RPGs are very DIY, but this is a totally new game and it feels weird for people to just go whole hog without even having played the game.

It's a abit of a culture shock to me too, but then, i don't aspire to be a game designer and avoid making homebrew at all costs lol.

Reynard · Monday at 9:03 PM

Kichwas said:
And lastly, Darrington themselves are going all in on being pro-homebrew. Both in what you run and how you look a the rules. For 'homebrew' the campaign frames and comments about re-styling things are written in a 'make the flavor your own' mindset.

Interestingly, the "reflavor" section has a very strong "keep the mechanics the same" vibe. And there really isn't much of any actual advice for creating setting rules.

I have a suspicion that the game may well get an "Advanced GM Guide" that addresses design for this stuff.

Ruin Explorer · Monday at 9:20 PM

Reynard said:
Something that is bugging me slightly and I am not even sure why: over on the daggerheart subreddit, tons of people are going all in on homebrew and houserules while admitting to not having played the game at all.

Yeah but some homebrew doesn't require you to have played, and that's the vast majority of what I'm seeing on the Daggerheart subreddit - particularly Campaign Frames and Ancestries. You need to understand the rules to make them, and they certainly would benefit from play experience, but you don't need-need play experience to build either. You may well want to alter them later, but that's pretty normal.

What I'm not seeing is a lot of house rules which are D&D-style "changing the rules by which the game actually works" stuff. I've seen almost none of that. Most of the rules suggestions I've seen have been bolt-on systems for adding ritual magic or certain other mechanics, in most cases borrowing heavily from another Narrative-focused RPG (and using existing mechanics like countdowns). The only house rule suggestion I've seen is to change Scars to so that instead of capping your Hope lower and lower, they give you negative Experiences the GM can trigger with a Fear - I didn't think that was fully thought-through. That said, I do think the Hope-limitation factor on Scars is probably not something that is going to make it to say, Daggerheart 2E in a few years, because it seems like it'll just make characters annoying/boring to play rather than fuelling drama or tension.

The things that did strike me as a little cart-before-horse were people who were adding entire Classes/Domains, but frankly that happens with any D&D-like RPG that doesn't start with every D&D-ish class imaginable.

zakael19 · Monday at 9:40 PM

Reynard said:
Something that is bugging me slightly and I am not even sure why: over on the daggerheart subreddit, tons of people are going all in on homebrew and houserules while admitting to not having played the game at all.

I know that RPGs are very DIY, but this is a totally new game and it feels weird for people to just go whole hog without even having played the game.

(partially ninja'd by @Ruin Explorer )

I think that for the Homebrew stuff there’s a feeling some of the classes are “missing” fantasies people liked in 5e. The only thing I’m doing there is my previously mentioned Seraph adjustment, and then showing how each class fits into the setting + what ancestries are most likely to be what and why to imply things about the world.

I’ll be do a lot of Environment work as we’ve been talking about and reskinning/adjustment of adversaries, but I think that’s expected core.

Oh, and bringing in a move from Stonetop called Keep Company which is really just an explicit call to have some focused inter-party time that everybody loves.

Will noodle with some XP design, because I like End of Session style closing rituals where we walk through and reflect on how the session went down and affected each character + the group. Maybe something like Major and Minor quests from 4e + an individual Belief or Instinct question, idk.

Stonetop asks each character individually if they demonstrated or struggled with their Instinct and if their relationships changed for personal XP markers, and then a set of Group questions which if we agree were met means everybody gets an XP. All of this has led to some excellent introspection and discussion that I dont want to lose.

nyvinter · Monday at 9:43 PM

Some of the people doing things have been playing since the early beta. Others of course hasn't and you can tell because there's a lot less thoughts about synergies for current and future uses.

Reynard · Monday at 9:50 PM

Ruin Explorer said:
Yeah but some homebrew doesn't require you to have played, and that's the vast majority of what I'm seeing on the Daggerheart subreddit - particularly Campaign Frames and Ancestries. You need to understand the rules to make them, and they certainly would benefit from play experience, but you don't need-need play experience to build either. You may well want to alter them later, but that's pretty normal.

What I'm not seeing is a lot of house rules which are D&D-style "changing the rules by which the game actually works" stuff. I've seen almost none of that. Most of the rules suggestions I've seen have been bolt-on systems for adding ritual magic or certain other mechanics, in most cases borrowing heavily from another Narrative-focused RPG (and using existing mechanics like countdowns). The only house rule suggestion I've seen is to change Scars to so that instead of capping your Hope lower and lower, they give you negative Experiences the GM can trigger with a Fear - I didn't think that was fully thought-through. That said, I do think the Hope-limitation factor on Scars is probably not something that is going to make it to say, Daggerheart 2E in a few years, because it seems like it'll just make characters annoying/boring to play rather than fuelling drama or tension.

The things that did strike me as a little cart-before-horse were people who were adding entire Classes/Domains, but frankly that happens with any D&D-like RPG that doesn't start with every D&D-ish class imaginable.

I am seeing at least a few people fiddling with Hits and Armor. I feel like that scares people a little, and is exactly the kind of thing you want experience with before changing.

Nightfly · Monday at 10:12 PM

Reynard said:
This is literally the first time I have ever seen or heard clerics and paladins referred to as "jihadists" and frankly it feels like trolling.

The original paladins in history/mythology were Christian holy knights who fought Muslim invaders during the Crusade era. So calling them "jihadist" is not that far from a simple statement of fact. There's room for disagreement, but it's hardly trolling.

Clerics are trickier because there's a lot of Van Helsing in that mix. But ultimately the concept of a holy warrior who beats evil with a hammer is pretty inextricable from the Crusades. Admittedly, clerics and paladins hit different in a world where objective evil like trolls and undead exist, instead of "evil" just meaning "humans who have a different religion". But still.

Steering this back on topic... does the Seraph class wash away those associations? Seems to me that it does. It nicely embodies the paladin playstyle without any of the baggage of the traditional paladin. It's also just more fun that they started from scratch. The Divine Wielder's ability to fling their weapon like Thor is unlike anything in D&D lore, and more power to it.

Faolyn · Monday at 10:23 PM

I must admit I’m wondering how wizards would be if you switched out Spendor for a different domain—Grace, Midnight, Sage, and Dread all would work well. Or create new domains to represent other traditional types of magic: illusion, necromancy, transmutation—all the D&Disms. Or if it would simply be better to create different subclasses? Or even new classes?

zakael19 · Monday at 10:34 PM

Nightfly said:
The Divine Wielder's ability to fling their weapon like Thor is unlike anything in D&D lore, and more power to it.

Theres a lot of the Diablo / Heroes of the Storm Blizzard class design in there to me!

Daggerheart General Thread [+]

Kichwas

Half-breed

UnplayedRanger

Adventurer

Reynard

aka Ian Eller

Ruin Explorer

Legend

zakael19

Hero

nyvinter

Adventurer

Reynard

aka Ian Eller

Nightfly

Hero

Faolyn

(she/her)

zakael19

Hero

Similar Threads