Acquisitions Inc. switching to Daggerheart

[Parmandur]

On the other hand, I'd argue that there is some number of people that play D&D (that number is y) that do not play D&D in that way. One of the weird mysteries of D&D that we see play out repeatedly in these threads, often through people arguing, is that you have groups that are both (X-y) and (X) playing the same game, but are playing it ... differently.

Absolutely this is the case, and I find this particularly striking after listening to Justice Armin this morning on the way to work discussing all the playtests they did jut giving entirely new players the prototype Starter Set and iterating based on how people acturesponded.

Not many of us have that level of perspective.

I think that Daggerheart will be a fascinating experiment from my P.O.V. Why? Because it is well-backed. It has celebrity (well, "TTRPG celebrity") backing. It has a platform (streaming) to "show people how to play" that didn't used to exist. It has publicity - a good amount of "mindshare" already. And it's trying to make formalize a fiction-first approach to the game in an atmosphere that might be more accepting of it in terms of the mass market- while still maintaining some "bones" of D&D that appeal to others (I did a brief survey and found some entertaining "optimization" arguments on Reddit).

Just as a hobby enthusiast, it is fun to see a game with a genuinely new positioning and opportunity: there hasn't ever been a new game quite like this, with these advantages and momentum.

Personally, there are a lot of reasons that it's not my bag, but I can't wait to see how it does over the next few years. Heck, maybe we will see more people start playing one pagers and truly experimental TTRPGs. Not that I'm holding my breath.

Yes, as a cultural phenomenon I am interested to see where this goes.

 

[kermit4karate]

....kind of.
Look, here's a snippet from Daggerheart that I think is helpful:
“The game takes a fiction-first approach, encouraging players and GMs to act in good faith with one another and focus on the story they’re telling rather than the complexity of the mechanics." (p. 4)

Personally, I think that is great! If X people play D&D, it is certainly true that there is a number of people (X-y) that play that way- in a fiction first manner, in good faith, focusing on telling a story together and not on the complexity of the mechanics.

On the other hand, I'd argue that there is some number of people that play D&D (that number is y) that do not play D&D in that way. One of the weird mysteries of D&D that we see play out repeatedly in these threads, often through people arguing, is that you have groups that are both (X-y) and playing the same game, but are playing it ... differently.

It gets back to one of the ... bigger debates ... that we see. How much does the system matter- and how much is playing really about second-order design (how individuals tables end up playing the game)? That's not a conversation I want to have, but it reminded me of an essay I wrote about the TTRPG Everway, and more specifically this quote in a review of the game:


...Everway is so far out of the mainstream, it's barely recognizable as an RPG. For starters, it has no dice. It has no tables or charts. A deck of cards directs the flow of the game. Monster bashing, treasure hunting, dungeon crawling bye-bye; Everway is pure narrative. We've seen these elements before: the Amber game pioneered diceless role-playing, White Wolf's Vampire: the Masquerade game championed storytelling over combat encounters, and TSR's 1988 BULLWINKLE AND ROCKY game used cards to help players improvise adventures. But they've never been integrated so faultlessly or presented so imaginatively. Everway will have veteran players and critics (like me, who tend to overreact to anything off the beaten path that's even halfway well-done) doing handsprings. Novices, however, should proceed with caution. This is hazardous territory.

...In my regular AD&D sessions, I never use dice or charts, nor do I allow my players to use them. The same goes at my convention appearances- no dice at my tables. In 10 years, I've yet to have a single player abandon ship. Everway codifies the freeform style favored by me and (I suspect) thousands of other referees. It makes for a brisk game, and Everway, to its credit, plays at blinding speed. But to an unprecedented extent, the success of an Everway adventure depends on the improvisational skills of the referee, his ability to come up with interesting plot twists, characters, and scenic details on the spur of the moment. And players must respond in kind, relying on their imaginations instead of die-rolls to forge their characters' destinies. I've spent many a painful afternoon watching would-be referees struggle to stage elementary AD&D encounters and exasperated novices trying to translate lists of numbers into three-dimensional personalities. It isn't easy, even with detailed rules and funny-sided dice to use as crutches.


The reason I am reminded of this is that fiction-first games were well-known, and run using AD&D (in this case, 2e), long before "fiction first" was a thing. I could pull quotes from the 1970s. It's a long-standing issue in the game- how much should be "fiction first," how much should be "emergent," how much should be "diceless,"* and so on.

*There have been long schisms about the divide between various "diced" and "diceless" areas in D&D, and as the quote above shows, some people just went diceless completely.

I think that Daggerheart will be a fascinating experiment from my P.O.V. Why? Because it is well-backed. It has celebrity (well, "TTRPG celebrity") backing. It has a platform (streaming) to "show people how to play" that didn't used to exist. It has publicity - a good amount of "mindshare" already. And it's trying to make formalize a fiction-first approach to the game in an atmosphere that might be more accepting of it in terms of the mass market- while still maintaining some "bones" of D&D that appeal to others (I did a brief survey and found some entertaining "optimization" arguments on Reddit).

Personally, there are a lot of reasons that it's not my bag, but I can't wait to see how it does over the next few years. Heck, maybe we will see more people start playing one pagers and truly experimental TTRPGs. Not that I'm holding my breath.

The distinction is all very ephemeral to me. Point taken though. Some people show up to a game with very specific expectations in mind, but even then, what are they? These books are hundreds of pages long, plus YouTube real play videos, plus word of mouth, plus other sources of information. No two people are gonna expect the same games or the same experience, regardless of the sourcebooks or other official material.

This is another high-level reason I say to just leave it up to the DM. Is it perfect? No, because people aren't. Still, D&D generally works out very well for me and my groups.

Really, I'm disinclined to learn a strikingly similar, and yet completely different, game unless the payoff is clear.

 

[Maxperson]

Would you buy a set of "Skill cards"...? Would you use them?

Probably not. I do like the Domain Cards in Daggerheart, though.

 

[kermit4karate]

Absolutely this is the case, and I find this particularly striking after listening to Justice Armin this morning on the way to work discussing all the playtests they did jut giving entirely new players the prototype Starter Set and iterating based on how people acturesponded.

Not many of us have that level of perspective.

Just as a hobby enthusiast, it is fun to see a game with a genuinely new positioning and opportunity: there hasn't ever been a new game quite like this, with these advantages and momentum.

Yes, as a cultural phenomenon I am interested to see where this goes.

Agreed. Where it is one, two and three years from now will be telling. Definitely has some marketing advantages.

 

[Reynard]

I mean, how some people play D&D in real life, absolutely. So is Draw Steel, so is Amber Diceless. In real life, there are a lot if different ways people play D&D.

I distinctly remember the delight in 2014, discovering that the new 5E rules played hiw we always played 3.x D&D in real life.

We get it, you don't like Daggerheart.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

We get it, you don't like Daggerheart.

...on a very serious note, I'm not sure how this helps discussion.

I get it. Almost all discourse now is reduced to its bare binary terms.

You're either with us, or against us. You're either a stan, or a hater.

But isn't that ... kind of basic (not in the TSR sense)? Is it possible for a person to appreciate something, even if it isn't for them? Can a person try to think about something critically without either stanning for it or hating on it? Is it still possible to discuss something without being reduced to warring factions of fandom?

I can't speak for @Parmandur - but just above this he literally posted that "Just as a hobby enthusiast, it is fun to see a game with a genuinely new positioning and opportunity: there hasn't ever been a new game quite like this, with these advantages and momentum." It seems to me that he is grappling with it in good faith, asking reasonable questions and explaining his own priors (see, e.g., his questions about the cards), and trying to get a better understanding while also saying that he's genuinely thrilled to see it!


I posted my personal rules on a different thread, but I'll bold the ones that I think matter-
1. People like what they like.

2. Elves are dead-eyed, soulless abominations.

3. It is always a better idea to try and convince someone to try something by telling them that this new thing is good and fun instead of trying to convince them that they are bad or ignorant for liking what they like.

4. There are only two things in the world that I cannot abide; people who are intolerant of the roleplaying choices of others, and bards.

5. You should try and understand why people like what they like instead of assuming people don't know better.

6. I don't know about you, but I take comfort knowing that he's out there. The Dude. Takin' er easy for all us sinners arguing on enworld.


I know that in my experience, people that are true fans of something often unintentionally cause a lot of damage to the thing that they love. Share your enthusiasm and love! That's always the winning play.

 

[zakael19]

I’m not sure what Parmendur is posting about. They seem to be gleeful about DH surpassing shadowdark for some reason, while also generally disliking DH’s actual designs or not being interested in looking at said actual design before making sweeping statements.

I do think that DH was consciously designed to marry 5e-style wrapping (classes, dice rolls, etc) with fiction-first principles through mechanics and guidance alike. Almost all the players I’ve had fall into this side of “dramatic and fun narrative over simulative rules but we mostly also like rolling dice with clicky abilities.” I’ve met plenty of people who aren’t fiction first/ drama & story focused (mostly online tbh, many here ), but not at my tables.

 

[kermit4karate]

...on a very serious note, I'm not sure how this helps discussion.

I get it. Almost all discourse now is reduced to its bare binary terms.

You're either with us, or against us. You're either a stan, or a hater.

But isn't that ... kind of basic (not in the TSR sense)? Is it possible for a person to appreciate something, even if it isn't for them? Can a person try to think about something critically without either stanning for it or hating on it? Is it still possible to discuss something without being reduced to warring factions of fandom?

I can't speak for @Parmandur - but just above this he literally posted that "Just as a hobby enthusiast, it is fun to see a game with a genuinely new positioning and opportunity: there hasn't ever been a new game quite like this, with these advantages and momentum." It seems to me that he is grappling with it in good faith, asking reasonable questions and explaining his own priors (see, e.g., his questions about the cards), and trying to get a better understanding while also saying that he's genuinely thrilled to see it!


I posted my personal rules on a different thread, but I'll bold the ones that I think matter-
1. People like what they like.

2. Elves are dead-eyed, soulless abominations.

3. It is always a better idea to try and convince someone to try something by telling them that this new thing is good and fun instead of trying to convince them that they are bad or ignorant for liking what they like.

4. There are only two things in the world that I cannot abide; people who are intolerant of the roleplaying choices of others, and bards.

5. You should try and understand why people like what they like instead of assuming people don't know better.

6. I don't know about you, but I take comfort knowing that he's out there. The Dude. Takin' er easy for all us sinners arguing on enworld.


I know that in my experience, people that are true fans of something often unintentionally cause a lot of damage to the thing that they love. Share your enthusiasm and love! That's always the winning play.

I wish I could upvote or ️ this 100 times.

Let people have a difference of opinion without back-and-forth 2,000-word monologues with a clear subtext of "no, wrong, you're a simpleton."

 

[kermit4karate]

...on a very serious note, I'm not sure how this helps discussion.

I get it. Almost all discourse now is reduced to its bare binary terms.

You're either with us, or against us. You're either a stan, or a hater.

But isn't that ... kind of basic (not in the TSR sense)? Is it possible for a person to appreciate something, even if it isn't for them? Can a person try to think about something critically without either stanning for it or hating on it? Is it still possible to discuss something without being reduced to warring factions of fandom?

I can't speak for @Parmandur - but just above this he literally posted that "Just as a hobby enthusiast, it is fun to see a game with a genuinely new positioning and opportunity: there hasn't ever been a new game quite like this, with these advantages and momentum." It seems to me that he is grappling with it in good faith, asking reasonable questions and explaining his own priors (see, e.g., his questions about the cards), and trying to get a better understanding while also saying that he's genuinely thrilled to see it!


I posted my personal rules on a different thread, but I'll bold the ones that I think matter-
1. People like what they like.

2. Elves are dead-eyed, soulless abominations.

3. It is always a better idea to try and convince someone to try something by telling them that this new thing is good and fun instead of trying to convince them that they are bad or ignorant for liking what they like.

4. There are only two things in the world that I cannot abide; people who are intolerant of the roleplaying choices of others, and bards.

5. You should try and understand why people like what they like instead of assuming people don't know better.

6. I don't know about you, but I take comfort knowing that he's out there. The Dude. Takin' er easy for all us sinners arguing on enworld.


I know that in my experience, people that are true fans of something often unintentionally cause a lot of damage to the thing that they love. Share your enthusiasm and love! That's always the winning play.

I think a lot of the tension begins with your #1 and what I'd humbly suggest could be #1.5.

1. People like what they like.
1.5. People don't like what they don't like.

Because not liking something (say, DH or D&D) sometimes fuels the intensity of our "like" for something else and the size of our blindspots.

I like D&D a lot, so I get drawn into these intense debates with people who ultimately dislike D&D a lot...in a discussion over Daggerheart.

Like, is this more about your dislike for D&D or my dislike for Daggerheart? Because honestly, I don't hate Daggerheart. I haven't even played it. I don't really plan to, but I'm curious about it. Interested to see how it evolves. I'm mostly ambivalent about it from what I've seen and heard.

See, and I know that that ambivalence drives the super passionate DH people up the wall, and I don't think it should. It isn't a crime to be ambivalent about something, but it seems to upset a lot of people!

 

[Maxperson]

The 2014 and 2024 have very clear guidelines on adjudication, and in practice it is fun and breezy, while still being mathematically satisfactory. It is very easy to set a DC based on what a player wants to do, run a d20 test, and go with it. It is a major highlight of gameplay at the table, again Critical Role being a prime example: the best parts are when the players want to do something, and roll thst d20.

And if you want to, you can add the Success with a Cost from the 5e DMG and/or Fail Forward from outside of the game(at least I don't recall seeing it anywhere). That gets rid of the complaint that ability checks are binary.