Daggerheart "Description on Demand" a GM DON'T

[Reynard]

What does that have to do with the thread topic?

You should really read the post I replied to for the full context.

 

[Kichwas]

Maybe I was wrong about "immersion" being an easily understood term. I feel like there are as many definitions for it in this thread as posters. It may be that my use of "engagement" is the same as someone else's "immersion."

This entire tangent of engagement vs immersion is funny. But also a little off topic for me.

However I might as well give my angle on it since everyone else has.

I'm engaged in things I do and immersed in things I watch.

 

[Dire Bare]

One time he asked me to describe how my attack killed a monster and the results caused another player to leave the game.

I kinda want to hear that story!

 

[Kichwas]

With Daggerheart, since more of the storytelling and worldbuilding are offloaded to the players, does it run the risk of suffering from "design by committee," where the resulting mix of styles and plotlines creates a game that lacks a cohesive vision?

I would say yes but no or perhaps yes in a good way.
You lose the cohesive vision but instead gain a consensus vision which, in a small group format, can be a net gain.

I feel like Daggerheart run "as intended" should have between 3 to 5 players, and 5 is pushing it. For me this was one of the major flaws of watching Critical Role play it. Their cast is too large for their own game. As frustrated as I am that CR picked D&D over Daggerheart, I would never want to run or play in a Daggerheart West Marches game. I feel you would lose what for me is the main reason to pick Daggerheart - 'Description on demand's ability to heavily influence the narrative going forward.

To do that you need a group that very rapidly starts to vibe off each other and round robin the roleplay almost as if by instinct. And that means a small group.

The perfect example of Daggerheart working at it's best is the Dodoborne podcast. If you can get past the comedy and the one player who talks in a funny voice (why do some players who are able-voiced do that... I almost stopped watching Dodoborne over it)... anyway, get past those two things and instead pay attention to HOW they play the game. And how the players will just go on for long stretches roleplaying while the GM is just completely passive, almost silent. The GM will just pop in an odd 'sure' or 'yeah' every so often and the players just run with the story at times.

There are three of them, and they are IMO the 'example case' of 'Description on Demand' when it works to perfection. I doubt most groups could pull it off. But these 3 do it so well I sit there wondering how they are not a bigger 'thing' than they are. Sure they have a rapidly growing fan base, but I can't imagine they won't keep growing.

So that game is more or less "design by group vibing to a 'this is fun' consensus".

And you'd be very hard pressed to get that success if they added even 2 more players. They might be able to get to 4 players if they got extremely lucky. They'd have 'State Lottery odds' of keeping that energy going at 5. And past that and I'd be betting on 'planet killing asteroid' over it still working.

Which you can kind of see when you watch Daggerheart actual plays with larger casts. They end up feeling like D&D games - at least to me. They might be good, but they lose what makes Daggerheart special.

So yeah. There is 'design by committee' in all of this. But when your committee stays small enough that's a good thing.

As an aside - ever since CR made their season 4 announcement the DH community seems to filling up with people planning West Marches games and I'm starting to feel none of those games will manage to capture the 'Daggerheart magic' because it's just too many people to keep the flow going right.

 

[Seramus]

The thing though is Daggerheart does just fine if you dint do it.

100% Agreed. You can involve all of your players in narrative collaboration, some of your players, or none of your players and run the game just like 5E, and Daggerheart works just fine in every scenario. It really can be run in the Traditional Auth GM style without a hitch.

 

[Umbran]

However, I did have a period where I tried to push some more narrative control on my players. I always ask feedback at the end of every few sessions. And in most cases I've been told that they didn't enjoy coming up with stuff that much. It took them in a different mindset, it pulled them out of the perspective of their character, into their perspective as a player having to come up with something.

(Rhetorical, generic "you" below, not you, Alkaizer, specifically)

So, do you just drag someone onto a dance floor, and ask them to do the polka, and expect them to do it well the very first time? If you don't do it again for months, do you expect it to go well the second time?

No. In general, you expect it to be awkward and for participants to be stuck in their heads, rather than enjoy the dancing. Maybe there'll be an occasional one who just gets it after one demonstration, but for the most part, it doesn't look like The King and I right off the bat. Proficient and easy use of a tool or technique requires practice.

Once you've got it down, though, and yo can stop thinking about where you need to put your feet and the "one, two, threehop" comes without thinking, then the polka becomes kind of fun.

 

[payn]

(Rhetorical, generic "you" below, not you, Alkaizer, specifically)

So, do you just drag someone onto a dance floor, and ask them to do the polka, and expect them to do it well the very first time? If you don't do it again for months, do you expect it to go well the second time?

No. In general, you expect it to be awkward and for participants to be stuck in their heads, rather than enjoy the dancing. Maybe there'll be an occasional one who just gets it after one demonstration, but for the most part, it doesn't look like The King and I right off the bat. Proficient and easy use of a tool or technique requires practice.

Once you've got it down, though, and yo can stop thinking about where you need to put your feet and the "one, two, threehop" comes without thinking, then the polka becomes kind of fun.

“In heaven there is no beer…”

 

[Kichwas]

My example was extreme to point out its flaws. Even reasonable players will give themselves an edge (even a slight one) when given the opportunity.

I guess I really am a narrativist player and have been longer than I realized.

Over the years I have very often debated GMs that tried to give my PC a 'freebie' edge. From getting a whole suit of extra abilities for a GURPS PC, to getting some freebie abilities, and last week I had a silly moment where a GM told me my wizard read something of note (that would give away the nature of something I was messing with) and I had to point out that my wizard was illiterate - so she kept on messing with (even though I as a player figured out what was up). DH doesn't have a built in "flaws / weaknesses' system, but I made her illiterate anyway as hook on a background question: what's the object you've been seeking". I decided the object was the locket she was wearing. She's seeking a way to read the words on it that are the command to open it that only she can see... And that gives me lots of downstream limits.

Noting that reading example in detail because I've had players do things like that many times: purposefully weaken a character they were playing for a potentially more engaging story angle.

It's actually much more common for me to get a backstory that is basically "man this guy's in for a rough time" than it is to get "this guy has the world at his feet, his own iseki harem, and all these toys." I haven't gotten one of those since early high school in the 80s. But I get on average one PC per campaign that has "tragic flaws / power downs that the game system did not in any way require."

When I was GMing Pathfinder I've seen as many players vote against using one of the 'power up' variant rules like Free Archetype as I've seen vote for them. And half the 'vote for' players voted on the belief and personal intention that it would add depth but not power.

Over the years in various games I've seen players ask for a rebuild on a PC because they'd picked something too powerful. And just as many because this other option here was more powerful.

It's not as simple as many will or many won't. It varies by individual and sometimes the mood of that individual.

 

[Kichwas]

A good DM is not making it up on the spot. A good DM details the adventure and the world ahead of time.

That's one perspective.

Here's another:

https://www.rpgtabletopgames.com/no-prep-gm

And the middle ground is probably where DH lies. Now, I do lean heavily towards the no-prep side because I think best when improvising. Even when I've done speeches in front of large groups I cannot work from notes or a script. I've got work with vibes and such.

But inside the DH community I've seen a few people note how much they liked a DH game for the fact that rather than having a premade world they didn't know or care for, they got to have a hand in crafting one that immediately connected to them as a result.

They were 'engaged' in it's creation rather than 'immersed' in it's delivery.
- And that, I feel, is a part of the essence of the difference between some of us in this thread.

 

[grankless]

A classic Justin Alexander article: making sweeping denigrating comments about anything that doesn't match his specific ideas. What a narrow-minded weenie. Even inventing his own little name for a pre-existing concept just to rag on it. Never change!