Daggerheart "Description on Demand" a GM DON'T

[Kichwas]

I wanted to like Legend in the Mist. I really did... loved the art style and the stated intention of the game.

But the tag system is kind of a mess, inelegant in play, and it feels like they just added in 'narrative' results in a very convoluted method.

See I had the opposite reaction.

For me Daggerheart isn't going far enough. What many in this thread describe as an option you can safely ignore sets up a fatal flaw of Daggerheart for me - that you can ignore Painting the Scene.

Mist falls down when people start debating tags rather than roleplaying them.

I'm concurrently listening to about 5 different actual plays split across Legend in the Mist and Otherscape and so I've heard in a short span of time a wide range of players and GMs.

Some of the players will drag a moment out trying to struggle for the tag combo that will win. They've brought a gamist approach to a narrative structured improv story telling event.

If you fight the GM over tags. Even if you do it politely. If the GM fights the GM over tags (which has happened in some podcasts) - it breaks down.

But that can happen in Daggerheart with Experiences. It can happen with 'what do I say in regards to a result with hope vs fear'. But yeah the tag system is in your face and so it's much easier for it to happen there.

But if you're doing vibrant narrative roleplay before, during, and after working through an action, and if you're good with on the fly spot choices / decisions, then it works out perfect.

And on the fly improv is my 'zone'. Whereas a structure can drive me nuts. I think just a few hours ago I noted how I like very well defined rules so that I don't need to make house rules for everything. I know this reads like the opposite of that statement to pretty much anyone who's brain doesn't work like mine does...

But I look at those tags and the structure they provide and I see a wrapper around the chaos that seems just right. And I've found that in some of the actual plays as well.

You have to approach it as a collaborative story. You don't try to game the tags, you use them to tell a story and guide where a given character lands in that story.

As for making a character with no stats, only semi-freeform tag descriptors that you wrap into connected themes of your own making (themselves a wrapper tag) - that's those tags, being used as a structure to set up that narrative play, instead of a gamist metric. Daggerheart halfway embraces this, and on your sheet you've got a few 'Experiences' instead of a skill system. But Mist fully embraces it.

And if you don't narratively play it then yes: it becomes a mess.

But if you do. Those safety prompts people keep noting in this thread to keep narrative play from getting out of control, to keep players from abusing it, to keep GMs from getting lost... it's right there on a Mist system's character sheet. The guideline to keep narrative play contained within theme is the tags. Especially given how you have to wrap them in themes, figure out the type for each theme, put a weakness in there which each theme, and keep them connected. That structure guides the chaos.

One or two of the Otherscape podcasts have gone on for well past 10 sessions and you can hear the players slowly embrace the format and start to 'get it'.

I suspect that in time we'll see the same thing with any Daggerheart actual plays that last. Dodoborne just got lucky in "getting it" as a group right out of the gate. But I've listened to a few others that seem to be 'getting in sync' as they go.

 

[Cergorach]

He talks about this being immersion breaking because it requires a shift in the POV. I disagree, it doesn't necessarily. Asking a player "what do you see that's different about the bark on these trees?" is just that player imagining seeing something, and describing it.

It doesn't matter that you disagree, it matters what the DM/players of a particular game think.

The issues can be many, as you describe, one of those issues could be putting a player on the spot that isn't that creative ad-hoc. My personal pet peeve would be that I, as a player would be creating parts of the world I should not have influence on, like the structure of the bark on a tree, that is the domain of the DM. If my character made something, it would be a different matter, how my character looks, and dresses, how he made his keep, etc. All fine. In the end it all comes down to: it really depends on the players and the DM.

As a matter of fact, I'm currently DMing something for my group that is very adjacent to this concept and I have to approach it very carefully, as different players are comfortable with it (or not) on very different levels. They characters have lost their memory + timeloop, they are redoing and rediscovering things they've already done and things they've already become. Essentially new decisions they make now becomes reality, an example: a player gained a level and multi-classed into Wizard, finding out there was a spellbook in their backpack with more first level spells in there then there should be... They currently have way more agency in setting their reality through their choices, but it's still not completely creating that reality. But it leans heavy enough against the description on demand stuff that it takes folks out of their comfort zone. The advantage is that I indicated before that I would go outside people's comfort zones to spice things up a bit, but it's balancing on an edge to keep everyone having fun.

Pnp RPGs tend to be a balancing act between player agency, fun for everyone, and world building. When a world feels like it's make out of very soft goo, many people won't like it. Just like DMs fudging dice regularly is not a good idea, or constantly adjusting encounter difficulty up and down for the party, makes many players feel like they have no agency and/or nothing they do matters.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That's a good theory but what do you do when you have a whole group going up and one guy insists on dragging them down?

Lets hypothetically overstate the mismatching player here's preference for an example.

No matter how much of a nice guy that one person is, do they get to hold the sway?

If his thing is counter to the enjoyment of their thing - the larger group's interest should win out.

I've voluntarily left groups a number of times when I realized I was the one pulling in the wrong direction. That's the responsible thing to do.

One thing to note about this style is it really needs full group buy in to work at its best. Listen to the Dodoborne podcast I noted a bit ago. Pick any one member of the cast and imagine them not going along and just being a traditional tRPG player and the whole thing falls apart.

In the advice quoted in this thread from DH, the first portion on some basic ways to ask for info from the player would work with partial buy in. But if the group wants to do the 'going further' bit you can't leave anyone out and pull it off.

So at some point the table has to pick a style based on the majority of those present. When that style hasn't been mine, I've politely excused myself so they could fill with someone more to their vibe. That's the right move. The wrong move is making everyone else hold to the wishes of one.

This is your and your groups choice, Do you kick him out or not? I probably would not but work around him but I accept that other groups look at matters differently.

 

[TiQuinn]

That's a good theory but what do you do when you have a whole group going up and one guy insists on dragging them down?

Lets hypothetically overstate the mismatching player here's preference for an example.

No matter how much of a nice guy that one person is, do they get to hold the sway?

If his thing is counter to the enjoyment of their thing - the larger group's interest should win out.

I've voluntarily left groups a number of times when I realized I was the one pulling in the wrong direction. That's the responsible thing to do.

One thing to note about this style is it really needs full group buy in to work at its best. Listen to the Dodoborne podcast I noted a bit ago. Pick any one member of the cast and imagine them not going along and just being a traditional tRPG player and the whole thing falls apart.

In the advice quoted in this thread from DH, the first portion on some basic ways to ask for info from the player would work with partial buy in. But if the group wants to do the 'going further' bit you can't leave anyone out and pull it off.

So at some point the table has to pick a style based on the majority of those present. When that style hasn't been mine, I've politely excused myself so they could fill with someone more to their vibe. That's the right move. The wrong move is making everyone else hold to the wishes of one.

It’s simple. The player who is not enjoying the game should gracefully leave and come back when the table is playing something more in line with their interests.

 

[TheSword]

I killed a monster with a Toll the Dead cantrip that did somewhere around 6 damage. That was when the DM struck, I think because my cleric never gets a killshot, and he asked, "How does it die?" There were some stages to my response, starting with panic. Then I considered the spell description, which makes it seem like the cantrip does damage with an eerie sound, so I thought maybe the monster should just fall over dead.

That would have been a good choice. But the panic was still there, and I wasn't sure what the DM wanted from this, so instead I said "a bunch of ghostly hands pop out of the air and rip the monster apart".

As we closed out the session, the DM gently suggested that because my cleric had minced the monster to death, we might not get as much monster loot as we otherwise would have.

We all said our farewells... and then about 20 minutes later another player posted in the text channel that giving us less loot because of "flavor" was unfair to me. This player did not ask my opinion before posting. I tried explaining that I was fine with it, but the player was convinced the DM would punish flavor descriptions going forward. The player was having some other stressors at the time that the table could not help with, but they never came back after that session, so I will always remember that the inciting incident for them leaving was the DM asking me how my cantrip killed a monster.

(At the next session the DM said the monster's horns and fangs remained, from which we crafted multiple enchanted items.)

It feels unfair because you weren’t expecting it. Somewhat arbitrary.

At the end of my WFRP sessions I award a player an extra 50XP if they have acted in a way that fits their motivation. A one word description of what drives them… glory, anger, power, greed, kindness, learning etc. I’m not at all prescriptive and the player decides. I’ve not had a session yet where a player didn’t get it but it keeps everyone thinking about what drives them. I always keep notes of things I think they did in case they get stumped.

Secondly I give them a bonus to something that they learnt in the session. A couple of advances to a skill they attempted (try or fail) or to a skill they would plausibly developed. E.g. Lore (Monstrosity) from fighting or researching a particular monster. A few GMs I’ve Dmd for have adopted this approach because they liked it.

On the flip side, I had a DM once who made players nominate another player for great moments. It sounds fun at first but soon felt like a popularity contest if you don’t get picked. I found myself thinking of things to nominate players who hadn’t been chosen because I felt bad. It’s a fine line I guess.

I think all these moments are there to get a person out of pure maths and into the character. Even if to do that they have to reward them mathematically.

 

[Elvish Lore]

Yet, rather oddly, Mercer runs Daggerheart in Age of Umbra almost exactly the same way that he runs D&D and other games, even at times "fixing" player descriptions of their monster kills. The only instance I can recall of players being handed the narrative reains was briefly in episode 7 (I think? - could have been 6 - it's when they are investigating the house with the corpses in the secret room)...and they did nothing that mattered to the story. It was surpisingly lame, given the talent involved.

Yea, it turns out that a fiction-first rules set is not a great choice to run a massively popular actual play that necessitates a rail-road like adventure meant to conclude in 8 sessions which includes high prep battle map building for planned encounters.

I’m not criticizing Mercer at all. He had a list of priorities as the show’s GM and letting the players determine the course of the story and giving them latitude in describing the setting and situations wasn’t on it.

 

[kermit4karate]

Well the GURPS example comes from a table I just got up from and left when he handed me a whole book of power ups.

Months later I ran into another person who'd been a player in that game and learned that GM was still angrily ranting about me.

But yeah. When folks tell me 'this is how it is if you want on this ride', I pull the cord to get off the train.

While I feel your example was over the top for fun effect in our conversation here; if someone actually told me I was getting a disciplinary red card, that'd be the end of me and them knowing each other. After all if we don't match, there are better ways to handle style differences than disrespect. However these days this stuff is normally resolved before or during session 0.

No one's ever walked out of one of my games, not in 41 years (I wouldn't let them, haha!). But seriously, when you do it well they don't want to.

You mentioning "Before session 0" reveals something too. I've generally always DM'd games for people who know me, either friends or acquaintances. Trying to DM for complete strangers would be a different story, but still. There can and should only be one boss at a table.

The worst games, biggest outbursts, largest fights I've ever witnessed in table games occurred when individuals were appeased/coddled into thinking they wielded too much influence over the table.

Unchecked ego on the player side of the table is a surefire recipe for disaster.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

I think for those who like my style of play they like exploration. They like to be challenged as PLAYERS not just characters. So the game revolves around overcoming enemies, and defeating the obstacles they put in your path (GAMISM aspect).

So Exploration and Gamism are the two prime directives of play for us.

I agree though if you can't engage in the DM's world and thus become immersed then it doesn't work. I think a good DM in my style can create a deep and engaging world. There are though a lot of poor DMs.

If you look at Monte Cooks 3e campaigns, e.g. Ptolus, you will see an engaging setting of the sort I like.

For me, if I know I'm part of the crafting of the world then the genie is out of the bag. I'm almost certainly disengaged and disinterested in what happens. When we craft the world, I know right then that until I crafted it nothing was there. The idea of the living breathing world goes out the window.

All we can hope for here is groups self identify well. I with this new generation of game styles could choose a name and stick to it so we all know what a game is like.

 

[Emerikol]

Some of the players will drag a moment out trying to struggle for the tag combo that will win. They've brought a gamist approach to a narrative structured improv story telling event.

I think this is an important point.

My gamist players want to compete against the dungeon. They want to strategize and plan their attack and win. They create a story in the process but the story is not their end goal. The end goal is to defeat the dungeon and collect the rewards. The story is still a fond memery and we remember epic moments when we were victorious against the odds.

I think with the narrativist players they are wanting to collaboratively craft a story. That doesn't interest me or my groups. If I want to do that I'll write a novel.

 

[Emerikol]

Pnp RPGs tend to be a balancing act between player agency, fun for everyone, and world building. When a world feels like it's make out of very soft goo, many people won't like it. Just like DMs fudging dice regularly is not a good idea, or constantly adjusting encounter difficulty up and down for the party, makes many players feel like they have no agency and/or nothing they do matters.

It comes down to what you are looking for in a game. My sensibilities are very much in the gamist/simulationist camp so I want a DM who really spends time crafting a world that I can explore. If they are good at it, and I am, then players will get a lot out of it. I work very hard to make my players believe their characters are living in a world that is in motion at all times. That people besides them are going about their lives.