Daggerheart 1.3 playtest dropping Tuesday.

[SteveC]

I'll ask again, has anyone that actually played had a player take all the turns? Has any table not mostly taken turns like normal?

I've heard this question asked many times but no one has said it happened in play. I've run a couple of combats with a friend who will be running the game for our group and we didn't have the issue. Because it's being discussed, we asked ourselves if it would be a problem with the characters we made. We each made two characters and played them against some bad guys. We saw that the characters who were focused on combat were really better at it, but not so much that it would seem to be a "waste" to have other characters act. But this was at first level.

As you level up, you really can make a character who is not focused on combat and maybe that situation would change. It would have to be a conscious design choice you'd make. I don't know how much you'd want to keep this from happening with the rules.

So I guess the problem is more in theory at low levels, but could become an issue at higher level.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Playing tactically ≠ finding and using exploits.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Playing tactically ≠ finding and using exploits.

It is ludicrous to call it an exploit. The rules are clearly written to enable it and the optimal course of action is obvious.

 

[SteveC]

To talk about stuff that I liked in the 1.3 rules, they have a section on "environments" which effectively are rules for the scene itself. It has mechanics that sit in the back and the GM can use them to make the scene more interesting. Several examples at different tiers are included. I like this.

Edited to add: I took a screen cap of one of the included environments for you to look at. For mods, if this is inappropriate, I'll be glad to remove it.

 

[Zaukrie]

To talk about stuff that I liked in the 1.3 rules, they have a section on "environments" which effectively are rules for the scene itself. It has mechanics that sit in the back and the GM can use them to make the scene more interesting. Several examples at different tiers are included. I like this.

concur

 

[Campbell]

If it is an issue, I'm not sure why the solution must be to make the game more like D&D and less like Apocalypse World instead of the other way around. It's not just that people seem to be locked in it's that people seem bent on making the game a worse experience who like the game as constituted.

 

[Stalker0]

I've heard this question asked many times but no one has said it happened in play. I've run a couple of combats with a friend who will be running the game for our group and we didn't have the issue. Because it's being discussed, we asked ourselves if it would be a problem with the characters we made. We each made two characters and played them against some bad guys. We saw that the characters who were focused on combat were really better at it, but not so much that it would seem to be a "waste" to have other characters act. But this was at first level.

As you level up, you really can make a character who is not focused on combat and maybe that situation would change. It would have to be a conscious design choice you'd make. I don't know how much you'd want to keep this from happening with the rules.

So I guess the problem is more in theory at low levels, but could become an issue at higher level.

The only thing we know for certain is that the design team has added an optional rule, in response to that feedback. So clearly they have gotten those notes.

Now was that because their playtest surveys contain notable comments towards that behavior, or its because one DH admin hangs out here and saw us complain about it....we can't say. But they clearly have gotten that feedback to the point where they felt at least an optional rule was a good idea.

 

[SteveC]

The only thing we know for certain is that the design team has added an optional rule, in response to that feedback. So clearly they have gotten those notes.

This is a good point. What I have seen is that this was the number one discussed issue. I like that they made this an optional rule because I don't agree that it needs to have the rule changed, but this is a good option. Would I use it? Probably not. But I have played PbtA games, including Dungeon World, where I have seen an actual problem.

In Dungeon World, the initiative system is going on purely in the GM's head, so they're the one who prompts for the next character to act. I have seen this be a problem in actual play because the GM just has so much going on that some players get skipped. I like what Daggerheart is doing here because I think it moves actions and who's acted out into the open and lets everyone see it, so the table can address the issues as a whole.

But I've only run a couple of combats, so I'll have to agree that this could be a potential problem, and this is a decent solution.

 

[mach1.9pants]

So who is the audience of critical role that play games? Most would have started on games that the show used, PF1 and 5e, I think - I don't watch. So it would be a disconnect for those players bright into the hobby on DnD to get rules that are very different, so I guess there would be push back

 

[hawkeyefan]

So who is the audience of critical role that play games? Most would have started on games that the show used, PF1 and 5e, I think - I don't watch. So it would be a disconnect for those players bright into the hobby on DnD to get rules that are very different, so I guess there would be push back

Sure, but isn’t the point of playing a different game that it actually works differently?

There are plenty of games that don’t have turned based initiative and which work perfectly fine. The push back seems to be coming mostly from people who have little to no experience with such games.