Daggerheart 1.3 playtest dropping Tuesday.

[Elvish Lore]

I think them including optional rules only makes the game more accessible for more people. Glad to see them putting in other ways to play the game and I don't think it means they're taking a step back from their original intentions. I agree that 'optimizers' left to their own devices will turn the game into P2e if they could but the identity of Daggerheart is intact and I kind of love where it's at right now - a somewhat crunchy narrative rpg.

I'm fascinated to see where this all ends up.

 

[Stalker0]

Yes, it’s an optional rule for people who don’t like the whole loose, free-flowing, narrative-first game the designers seem to think Daggerheart is designed to be.

part of a beta is taking feedback from your players (Aka your customers). If their user base is suggesting they want things a little less narrative and a little more mechanical…than as a design team they need to decide what that means. Right now they are seeing if this optional rule is enough. Maybe it goes too far, maybe they decide to go further.

The key is that they are experimenting, so let them experiment

 

[Stalker0]

For me my biggest concern with DH in the big picture sense, is how it will look table to table with resource management.

The reason is the power budget of the game hugely depends on the amount of rolls the party does (or what the GM expects or allows). While it’s technically “balanced” between hope and fear….assertive players that are able to get more rolls are going to have more hope to do stuff in the game.

It’s another nod that I think GMing DH might be a good bit harder than 5e ij several ways

 

[overgeeked]

part of a beta is taking feedback from your players (Aka your customers). If their user base is suggesting they want things a little less narrative and a little more mechanical…than as a design team they need to decide what that means. Right now they are seeing if this optional rule is enough. Maybe it goes too far, maybe they decide to go further.

Or they need to stop trying to design by committee and make the game they want to and whoever likes that game will be their customers.

The key is that they are experimenting, so let them experiment

I'm not stopping them from experimenting. I'm commenting on their experiments like everyone else.

 

[Stalker0]

Or they need to stop trying to design by committee and make the game they want to and whoever likes that game will be their customers.

Having helped playtest some board games in the past, very few games remain unchanged by playtesting…for good reason.

this is exactly the point of a beta, and it’s not like they swapped out core narratives for strict mechanics. The fundamental game hasn’t change here, they threw a bone to the more mechanical oriented tables as optional rules…I don’t get the issue with that.

Now if they made the optional rules the default, sure i could see the concern that they were changing their vision in the face of the committee, but that’s a stretch at this point

 

[hawkeyefan]

The initiative and grid stuff reads to me more like “wow a lot of people seem scared about this whole no initiative thing… let’s slap something together for now” than an actual attempt to change the game. I don’t imagine they’ll actually incorporate those changes in any long term kind of way.

We’ll have to wait and see, though.

 

[Campbell]

I hope the optional rules stay optional.

For the most part I like the structural changes, though I would like failure with fear to be GM Move + Fear while retaining it being a choice for Success With Fear.

The environment statblock are a very cool tool.

I am a little disappointed that the previous of Battle Strategist that rewarded Warriors for doing things other than attacking in combat has been replaced by an ability that allows you to spend a stress on a successful attack to inflict a point of stress. The new ability is not like bad, but the original ability was the sort of fiction first design that drew me to the initial beta.

I hope that sort of standardization of effects is not a bellwether of things to come.

 

[Distracted DM]

Note how I never said optimizers. For gamers winning is the goal. So they will play games is the most grindy, boring way possible so long as it is the safest and easiest path to victory.

That’s exactly what we see here. The fun is everyone collaboratively takes turns and enjoys just playing a game together with a loose initiative.

Then the gamers step in and find the exploit or grind that removes risk and fun to win the game in the easiest possible way, in this case by denying your fellow players their ability to actually play the game.

Yes, it’s an optional rule for people who don’t like the whole loose, free-flowing, narrative-first game the designers seem to think Daggerheart is designed to be.

Some players will intentionally have a boring time if it means doing the optimal thing to ensure success.

"Why aren't you taking any turns?"
"It's best for her character to take all the turns in this situation- I'll just sit this one out."
Later...
"Did you have a good time?"
"It was fine I guess. We won, but some of us had to sit most of it out."
"You didn't HAVE to..."
"Yeah we did, that was the best move- that's how we won."

 

[overgeeked]

Some players will intentionally have a boring time if it means doing the optimal thing to ensure success.

Yes, I know. That's literally what I said. That's a flaw in the player's attitude, not a flaw in the design of games.

 

[Distracted DM]

Yes, I know. That's literally what I said. That's a flaw in the player's attitude, not a flaw in the design of games.

I was supporting your post with an example.