Critical Role's 'Daggerheart' Open Playtest Starts In March

On March 12th, Critical Role's Darrington Press will be launching the open playtest for Daggerheart, their new fantasy TTRPG/

Using cards and two d12s, the system plays on 'the dualities of hope and fear'. The game is slated for a 2025 release.

Almost a year ago, we announced that we’ve been working hard behind-the-scenes on Daggerheart, our contribution to the world of high-fantasy tabletop roleplaying games.

Daggerheart is a game of brave heroics and vibrant worlds that are built together with your gaming group. Create a shared story with your adventuring party, and shape your world through rich, long-term campaign play.

When it’s time for the game mechanics to control fate, players roll one HOPE die and one FEAR die (both 12-sided dice), which will ultimately impact the outcome for your characters. This duality between the forces of hope and fear on every hero drives the unique character-focused narratives in Daggerheart.

In addition to dice, Daggerheart’s card system makes it easy to get started and satisfying to grow your abilities by bringing your characters’ background and capabilities to your fingertips. Ancestry and Community cards describe where you come from and how your experience shapes your customs and values. Meanwhile, your Subclass and Domain cards grant your character plenty of tantalizing abilities to choose from as your character evolves.

And now, dear reader, we’re excited to let you know that our Daggerheart Open Beta Playtest will launch globally on our 9th anniversary, Tuesday, March 12th!

We want anyone and everyone (over the age of 18, please) to help us make Daggerheart as wonderful as possible, which means…helping us break the game. Seriously! The game is not finished or polished yet, which is why it’s critical (ha!) to gather all of your feedback ahead of Daggerheart’s public release in 2025.

 

[Stalker0]

Because it isn't the problem you think it is. Maybe Ffard beats on the guards while Grey Mouser gets the treasure. People seem to think this is 5E where every character has to have exactly the same amount of spotlight time in every fight and that doesn't have to be the case.

I can say having run many different systems other dnd. One thing does remain the same, most players want screentime. Regardless of the narrative, players want to ACT.

This is not a scenario where "in fight A the Fighter gets all the love, and in fight B the rogue does". Those scenarios are fine, and they occur in all systems (dnd included). Hell how many times do people have a dnd combat that lasts one round, and the person last in initiative doesn't even get to go?

The problem is when you take it over many combats. The worry is that if you have a character that is so much better in combat than another, and I am free to choose which character gets to go next.... you are mechanically incentivized to let the combat character go more often than other characters in most fights...perhaps even a lot more.

That becomes a screentime problem, as now one character is getting all of the attention, and the other players don't. I don't care what system you play in.... that is a problem.

And sure the GM can force the "proper" actions through convention or narration or XYZ.... but you shouldn't start your game design with that need. Again the game is in beta, its changeable....its far better to adjust your mechanics to fit your narrative so the GM doesn't have to. That's just better for everyone!

 

[Stalker0]

For people who care, here is a quick chart of how the 2d12 system works in terms of success rates. The first value is what you need to roll on the die, and the second is the chance you will get that or better. Note this DOES include critical successes, so that is all factored into this.

If we consider that a 5 - 15 on the result is probably the norm, a +1 DC is roughly ~5.5% less chance to succeed as a general guideline.

Value Needed	Probability
2​	100%​
3​	100%​
4​	99%​
5​	97%​
6​	94%​
7​	92%​
8​	88%​
9​	83%​
10​	78%​
11​	72%​
12​	65%​
13​	58%​
14​	50%​
15​	43%​
16​	36%​
17​	31%​
18​	25%​
19​	21%​
20​	17%​
21​	14%​
22​	11%​
23​	10%​
24​	8%​

As an example: Lets say I need to make a spellcast roll (DC 14), and my spellcast stat is a +4. That means I need a 10+ on my 2d12, so I have a 78% chance of success.

 

[Reynard]

I can say having run many different systems other dnd. One thing does remain the same, most players want screentime. Regardless of the narrative, players want to ACT.

This is not a scenario where "in fight A the Fighter gets all the love, and in fight B the rogue does". Those scenarios are fine, and they occur in all systems (dnd included). Hell how many times do people have a dnd combat that lasts one round, and the person last in initiative doesn't even get to go?

The problem is when you take it over many combats. The worry is that if you have a character that is so much better in combat than another, and I am free to choose which character gets to go next.... you are mechanically incentivized to let the combat character go more often than other characters in most fights...perhaps even a lot more.

That becomes a screentime problem, as now one character is getting all of the attention, and the other players don't. I don't care what system you play in.... that is a problem.

And sure the GM can force the "proper" actions through convention or narration or XYZ.... but you shouldn't start your game design with that need. Again the game is in beta, its changeable....its far better to adjust your mechanics to fit your narrative so the GM doesn't have to. That's just better for everyone!

You are still assuming the 5E stance that the only screen time that matters is combat.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because it isn't the problem you think it is. Maybe Ffard beats on the guards while Grey Mouser gets the treasure. People seem to think this is 5E where every character has to have exactly the same amount of spotlight time in every fight and that doesn't have to be the case.

There are plenty of ways to deal with groups of characters who don't all have the same action screen time. There's a century or so of film and television to help you out on the matter.

I feel like the problem is that people are looking at DH like it is supposed to be 5E and be a 5E replacement, when it is obviously designed to be a actioned-up narrative game. If the players really want to have a big disparity in combat power output, look to things like Buffy or Superman and Lois and Jimmy or similar stories where there's one heavy hitter and their allies and support crew. But you absolutely have to get out of the mindset that they must be equal if the players are explicitly telling you through their character choices that isn't what they want.

So your answer is that it is just fine if some characters sit out the combat? I just don't think that will work for a lot of people, especially as they might have invested in some combat powers for their character, but those are wasted if someone else has invested even more. This game has too much combat focused rules for the combat not to be a significant element of the game.

 

[Reynard]

So your answer is that it is just fine if some characters sit out the combat? I just don't think that will work for a lot of people, especially as they might have invested in some combat powers for their character, but those are wasted if someone else has invested even more. This game has too much combat focused rules for the combat not to be a significant element of the game.

Alternatively, you could design your combats to have different stakes than "KILL!!!!!" You know what your party is. you are GMing a narrative game. You are explicitly allowed to, encouraged to, maybe even required to present situations that develop a story starring those protagonists. In this example you are writing a Bane/Catwoman team up comic book. Come up with the kinds of set pieces and stories that lean into that, rather than complain.

Also, let's remember that this is the most extreme disparity possible and not particularly likely as far as party composition goes. But even if it were, you (and the players; remember that they are authors here too) can come up with something cool to do on a regular basis.

One of the greatest skills possessed by the CR crew is the ability for all of the players to actually sit back and enjoy watching their fellows get the spotlight, sometimes for a long time at the table. it is a skill that lots of gamers should endeavor to learn.

 

[Stalker0]

You are still assuming the 5E stance that the only screen time that matters is combat.

At no point did I say that. In fact if we look at 5e debates, when you look at the classic caster vs martial divide, most of the time we aren't debating combat effectiveness, its actually non-combat stuff where people think the casters dominate.

And sure we could look at that too as a concern. Does DH allow for characters that become combat monsters but are utterly inept at non-combat things...and so will feel bored and useless when the action tracker is removed? Perhaps....I haven't focused on that yet, but perhaps that is a concern to.

What I have done is noted that there is a risk of having a large scale imbalance in combat screen time. If your groups do a decent number of combat (and there is NOTHING to suggest that DH is a combat lite game, it has lots of rules for combat, and its intro adventure has several fights.), than that means that you will have character getting to have a much larger share of the screentime than other players.

Screentime is one of the key currencies of fun I find for players in general (agnostic across systems). Everyone wants to feel cool and special and do cool and special things. Boredom is the bane of any gaming system. If you have a design that can encourage a screentime imbalance....its worth looking into.

 

[Reynard]

What I have done is noted that there is a risk of having a large scale imbalance in combat screen time. If your groups do a decent number of combat (and there is NOTHING to suggest that DH is a combat lite game, it has lots of rules for combat, and its intro adventure has several fights.), than that means that you will have character getting to have a much larger share of the screentime than other players.

Screentime is one of the key currencies of fun I find for players in general (agnostic across systems). Everyone wants to feel cool and special and do cool and special things. Boredom is the bane of any gaming system. If you have a design that can encourage a screentime imbalance....its worth looking into.

Does the design encourage that though, or simply allow it if someone makes a real effort to make it happen? I think that is an important distinction. in the disparity presented, the rogue player actively chose everything the could that was not a combat ability for 10 levels, and the warrior player the opposite. Does DH reward that sort of build in any way, over extended play, when "it isn't a combat lite game"?

The problem with setting this down as some sort of game breaker is that it isn't actually a thing that would happen unless it was a) intentional, or b) done by novices that aren't very smart creating high level characters for a game they have never played. And even then, in a narrative game, the GM can STILL give the players what they want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So your answer is that it is just fine if some characters sit out the combat? I just don't think that will work for a lot of people, especially as they might have invested in some combat powers for their character, but those are wasted if someone else has invested even more. This game has too much combat focused rules for the combat not to be a significant element of the game.

Combat does seem to apportioned a significant amount of rules text (like 5e). I also question (no certainty here) the idea that Daggerheart is in no way intended by its designers and publishers as a replacement for 5e. Clearly Darlington and the CR team are going to have faith in their own product, and it seems reasonable that faith would eclipse loyalty to a game someone else makes (5e). We don't know how much of the attention pie Daggerheart (and the other one) are going to take up, and therefore how of that pie 5e is going to lose.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Alternatively, you could design your combats to have different stakes than "KILL!!!!!" You know what your party is. you are GMing a narrative game. You are explicitly allowed to, encouraged to, maybe even required to present situations that develop a story starring those protagonists. In this example you are writing a Bane/Catwoman team up comic book. Come up with the kinds of set pieces and stories that lean into that, rather than complain.

Also, let's remember that this is the most extreme disparity possible and not particularly likely as far as party composition goes. But even if it were, you (and the players; remember that they are authors here too) can come up with something cool to do on a regular basis.

One of the greatest skills possessed by the CR crew is the ability for all of the players to actually sit back and enjoy watching their fellows get the spotlight, sometimes for a long time at the table. it is a skill that lots of gamers should endeavor to learn.

But not a skill a lot of players actually have IME. I assume Darrington wants to sell this game and have a lot of people play it. Having the intended play be greatly different from the 5e that has been nearly the entire focus if CR until very recently might cut into that.

 

[Stalker0]

Does the design encourage that though, or simply allow it if someone makes a real effort to make it happen? I think that is an important distinction. in the disparity presented, the rogue player actively chose everything the could that was not a combat ability for 10 levels, and the warrior player the opposite. Does DH reward that sort of build in any way, over extended play, when "it isn't a combat lite game"?

The problem with setting this down as some sort of game breaker is that it isn't actually a thing that would happen unless it was a) intentional, or b) done by novices that aren't very smart creating high level characters for a game they have never played. And even then, in a narrative game, the GM can STILL give the players what they want.

So "game breaker" is a bit of a strong phrase here. I'm not saying this ruins the system or anything. But....this is a beta....our goal is to break it...and yes that means there are some concerns here.

So one of the notable differences between DH and 5e here is that DH allows you to level with very little focus on combat. 5e on the other hand, combat is baked in, sure you can focus many choices on non-combat areas but you always some built in combat efficiency.

Could DH do the same without breaking the bank here? A simple example....proficiency. What if that was just given to you like you get certain severe damage bonuses. That would assume minimum amount of competency for each character, and then if you want to offer a few extra proficiencies for people that want to "focus"...than fine.

But I will say I've participated in a number of board game playtests, and one of the worst things you can do as a designer when you see people break your game is "they are playing the game wrong" or "no one else will do it that way". As a designer you want to ensure that your rules are enforcing the narrative in a way that your players (and GM) are working with the rules....not against them.

If creating such a non-combat focused character is considered a "novice move" that is "not very smart".... well maybe the system should just not allow for that degree of specialization?