I just don't see how you can see the "Sharing the Spotlight" section and "Engage Quiet Players" and think it doesn't apply to all scenes across all aspects of play.
Daggerheart General Thread [+]
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
I just don't see how you can see the "Sharing the Spotlight" section and "Engage Quiet Players" and think it doesn't apply to all scenes across all aspects of play.
Faolyn
(she/her)
Don't forget the number of people who will play online. When you only have a camera, it can be hard to read everyone's body language well enough to know if you've gone on too long or too often in comparison to others. If I get to run this, I may do the three actions per person thing, not because of hogs but for this reason.
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
Quiet players do exist. Spotlight hogs do exist.
I'm running a Daggerheart playtest and I'm having that exact problem. Every time the PCs roll with Fear or fail I make a move and pass play back to the PCs. The same player repeatedly took the spotlight every single time until I put a stop to it. The general "don't be a dick" rule was not good enough. I had to step in. That slowed him down, slightly. After a lot of complaining. Then I had to coax a quiet player to step up and engage with the game. Regularly calling him out specifically, the others would try to jump in and I had to pointedly say I was calling on that player and no others in the moment.
We tried the spotlight tracker and the spotlight hog used his three actions immediately then got bored as the others took their turns. There is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
If the rules themselves aren't going to guard against either behavior then the referee has to. Trouble is it's a constant headache with certain kinds of players. I don't want to have to tell a player to chill out because they're overly excited nor do I want to have to tell a player to lean in and actively engage with the game.
I think the first house rule I'm going to make is side-based initiative.
I'm running a Daggerheart playtest and I'm having that exact problem. Every time the PCs roll with Fear or fail I make a move and pass play back to the PCs. The same player repeatedly took the spotlight every single time until I put a stop to it. The general "don't be a dick" rule was not good enough. I had to step in. That slowed him down, slightly. After a lot of complaining. Then I had to coax a quiet player to step up and engage with the game. Regularly calling him out specifically, the others would try to jump in and I had to pointedly say I was calling on that player and no others in the moment.
We tried the spotlight tracker and the spotlight hog used his three actions immediately then got bored as the others took their turns. There is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
If the rules themselves aren't going to guard against either behavior then the referee has to. Trouble is it's a constant headache with certain kinds of players. I don't want to have to tell a player to chill out because they're overly excited nor do I want to have to tell a player to lean in and actively engage with the game.
I think the first house rule I'm going to make is side-based initiative.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
When we play tested Daggerheart the GM managed the spotlight just like he does running Powered by the Apocalypse games and we had no real issues. I'll likely do the same when I run a one shot in a month or two (we have Vileborn and Achtung Cthulhu! oneshots on the docket).
Yup, same. I think that prioritizing dramatic and cinematic emphasis will be the criteria for t-ing up a GM action and pivoting, but I refuse to let a game with this much promise to lag outside of clear periods of downtime / chill-ness where you frame stuff with the players and they take it for interplay etc.
Even with excellent players who all knew each other and do teamwork well, I felt that sort of ebbing of energy when I played in the pre-made adventure when the GM just wide-spotlighted the group with nothing grabby done as their Move to react to.
Out of curiosity, where were the other players?
I'm not saying spotlight hogs and quiet players aren't real, or doesn't need correcting. I'm saying it should be the players that solve these problems unless the situation is out of hand (in which case maybe the solution is a disinvitation).
Interesting! Every game I’ve ever played has pointed in the rules to the GM to facilitate the table and manage play. I’ve had players DM me to bring problems and concerns up that they wanted addressed, because they didn’t want to “derail” or have a fight over chat about stuff.
I think DH’s better emphasis on table cohesion and expectations during session 0 etc may help here, but I do wish it had an open End of Session / Stars and Wishes procedure where people could air general concerns in open.
I think DH’s better emphasis on table cohesion and expectations during session 0 etc may help here, but I do wish it had an open End of Session / Stars and Wishes procedure where people could air general concerns in open.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I'm not trying to backseat DM here, but like, when you say "pass back", what did you do? I feel like this game assumes (and doesn't quite properly explain!) a PtbA-like approach where you pick who you pass it back to a player by asking that player a question, and if you do something more like say "Balls in your court guys, what do you do?", then that is a bit of a different approach that's going to work more variably with some groups.
Also, obviously I'm not there, but to me, the "enthusiastic" player sounds like they maybe lack some social skills/empathy (nobody's perfect!), and that if they're "getting bored" because they blew their turns and now have to wait the same exact amount of time as everyone else, that's a very fundamental problem that has nothing to do with DH - that's literally the same in D&D or any RPG where the PCs have individual initiative. That does mean your side-based initiative may be the right thing to help of course! But you're essentially working around someone who is being a bit naughty and selfish, and unless they're really obtuse, probably knows they are being at least mildly bad, and should probably meditate on that a bit!
My experience is that most other players are weirdly bad at intervening on this kind of thing unless they've got DM experience themselves (or similar "small group management/fairness" experience y'know, like school/kindergarten teachers or people who lead meetings at work).
I do agree that players usually organise themselves so they all get a go in games without strict initiative etc. but when that breaks down I think a lot of players either don't quite realize it's happened or don't know what to do about it.
But why? PbtA expects the DM to do this, and the design of DH pretty much definitely expects the same thing, even if it lacks clarity. I haven't seen Matt Mercer's actual AoU session yet but I'll be shocked if that's not how he's running it to a certain extent. I mean, you don't go to a specific player every single time, sure, but a significant amount of the time? I think that's expected and kind of required to function correctly.
Especially as sometimes the natural flow of things is going to leave a player out more - that's not the players screwing up or being bad or w/e - it's just how it works when you don't strictly cycle through turns (including in trad RPGs).
I decided to spin the initiative discussion off so we stop inundating this DH+ thread.
aramis erak
Legend
The writing team pretty much tries to beat one over the head with that obligation
Yep!
Let's not forget the option on page 89 in the sidebar: rounds are optional, and 3 spotlights per round per PC; the GM gets them only from the PC's rolls (directly, when they roll a fear, and indirectly, if they spend the fear token.)
So, if we have a quiet player, we can have them act as often as the rest... assuming they don't choke.
The effect of that should be similar to the mode in FFG Star Wars, or Osprey's Jackals...Players' discussing who goes when, then the action beginning. (Both do have initiative, but it's slots; the slots are side-owned, and fixed per engagement) The difference? Unlike those two, there's no telling ahead of time when the opponents get to go in DH... well, unless you're the GM and well stocked on fear.
When everyone's participatory, the use of rounds can go away. They're training wheels for some groups; some will probably use them long term. And some will use them outside conflict... (I probably will for social scenes and for downtime - 3 per player in social, and 1 per player in downtime, so that everyone gets one started before anyone else gets a second. Largely to ensure players don't hog the spotlight.)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
