• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Daggerheart 1.3 playtest dropping Tuesday.

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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
I admit I am very curious about where on the spectrum of narrative - mechanical Daggerheart ends up on. The other GM in my group is very excited to run this for us.

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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
Well we certainly can't draw any conclusions yet, I think, but there's also a big difference between public playtesting and in-house playtesting. They often have different goals. Look at WotC.

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.
“Win at any cost” is a fairly all-pervasive attitude. How often have you heard sports team coaches say “we are not here to have fun, we are here to win” or similar?

If you write a game with a ton of features and rules that improve your performance in combat, this tells the players that this is the sort of game where mechanics matter and winning combats is a goal. So it is then strange to say that the player have "an attitude problem" if they try to play tactically using these rules to win combats.
Last edited:


Doing the best imitation of myself
“Win at any cost” is a fairly all-pervasive attitude. How often have you heard sports team coaches say “we are not here to have fun, we are here to win” or similar
I could not disagree with this more in terms of RPGs. I did hear it, but that was back in the 70s and 80s, and it was people who came to RPGs from miniature wargames and treated D&D as being just an extension of that. I definitely don't see this attitude in Critical Role, so I have no idea why it would be an expectation for an RPG they would create.

For me, what should happen is that different characters should always be a reasonable choice to take action in a combat. Maybe not the best choice, but a reasonable one. Maybe that means automatically giving some combat abilities, because I'm sure there will be some players who are going to create a character with entirely social/exploration abilities. And if the player and the group are okay with them not doing much in combat, I suppose that is okay, but I definitely think there needs to be some guidance and maybe even assurance that they will have something to do.

I don't get the vibe (especially in 1.3 where the GM moves and how to run the game are discussed a bit more) that this is a "combat as war" RPG. You can make any game serve any role, but I think in general they'd be better served by another system.

Remove ads