Daggerheart Discussion

[Thomas Shey]

This was also my imprewwion in the one shot I had.

Unlike PbtA where the "yes but" can feel like a threadmill/ not comming forward: "You succeeded with problem A, however, because you did not do it too well, you now created a new problem B".

Yeah, I play with some people who would absolutely view that as "failing but getting a cookie." Its probably not too bad in frequency in things in PbtA games where the character has a good rating in it, but I can easily see why you hear stories about people actively avoiding doing things outside that because they're too concerned about making matters worse.

At least the Hope/Fear duality in Daggerheart means you're slightly more likely to consistently make things better than worse (ignoring for the moment other sources of Fear in the game, just talking about success rolls here).

In combat it is (mostly) just the enemies turn. (Unless you used something like a sleep spell where the GM literally can just use the fear to undo your turn). This feels fair, and it does not hinder your progress, just potentially cost you some ressources (hp, armor, stress hope)

Honestly, the fact that a lot of things are fed off a limited resource even at the GM's end makes this feel like it'd feel good to a lot of people. When I've played other games that did that, people generally responded well.

Outside combat thanks to pooling of fear and having events costing quite a bit fear, the single roll with fear does not feel like lost progress, since its not a 1 to 1 consequence for a roll, instead it feels like a buildup. And depending what kind of event is triggered by the GM it can feel also like just something new and actual story progress (new enemies appear which will give you potentially also a new lead).

You can do the same with clever used clocks in PbtA, but here the GM is a bit more forced into doing this.

A principaled GM in games in the PbtA sphere who is on his game can probably avoid overdoing it with consequences, but some people are just really sensetive when the wind blows from that direction. Its one of the things that would make me cautious about running Curseborne.

 

[Reynard]

Honestly, the fact that a lot of things are fed off a limited resource even at the GM's end makes this feel like it'd feel good to a lot of people. When I've played other games that did that, people generally responded well.

I like this a lot as a GM, because it gives me a strong sense that I, too, am playing the game and have to think about this important resource. It makes "vs players" more fun because it is more fair.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I know I can be a little evangelical about DH, and I am sure others find THAT exhausting. I just wish folks who are turned off by the idea that it is a "narrative game" would give it a shot because the extent to which it is narrative is entirely up to the group playing it.

That's one reason I'm waiting for the session of my players is running in about a month before I do more than react to certain rules elements and comments others have made about it. While I think I have a pretty good history of extrapolating play from reading rules, its never perfect and I try not to say things with certainty about games I haven't played (unless I've read so much commentary that I can just make a judgment from others experiences, but even that needs to be done with caution).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Aren't all RPGs better with a more improvisational style?

A more rigid game is better than a heavily improvisational game with a GM who lacks the talent or energy to handle improvisation well. It may not give everyone quite what they want (and depending on the player, that "what they want" may be a minimum enough its not worth it for them to play) but an improvisation-heavy game run by someone who is simply not good at or up for it can be really bad (this is not, to make it clear, me suggesting like another poster those are always bad; my general tendency in the past was to make it up as I went along quite a lot, and I turned in years of good play that way. But one needs to know one's limits).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I like this a lot as a GM, because it gives me a strong sense that I, too, am playing the game and have to think about this important resource. It makes "vs players" more fun because it is more fair.

I found that years ago when I used Villain Points in M&M, even after it had gone over to freeform GM Fiat. I was more comfortable, and the players were not just waiting around to see when I'd let them succeed.

 

[Tigris]

the entirety of the non-mechanical rules on how to play Daggerheart are focused on a specific style of play.

I think this part is what creates the really different experiences:

"non mechanical rules" are for many people not a thing. I know its quie typical in PbtA games, but in most games (D&D, sports, boardgames, cardgames, wargames etc.) the rules are the mechanics. Everything else is just suggestions.


Especially a heavily D&D inspired game with a free SRD just will have many people playing it for which the rules are just what is in the SRD.


That is why I think that having opportunity attack RULES would be good. Because 1. the players would know these, unlike GM tipps, and second it makes play experience more similar, because the actual mechanical rules are much more consistent between different GMs. It does not matter if some GM do similar things than opportunity attacks by interpreting golden opportunity in some way, this will not be done by all, and also if its just a GM interpretation instead of a fixed rule it feels less fair.


And especially in a game like Daggerheart which feels more fair thanks to the ressources the GM needs to spent, having some "I do it because I can" golden rule interpretation of an opportunity attack, makes the game lose some of its charm.


Similarily one selling point for this game is that its quite simple to learn. If you are required to read a 300 page book full of "tipps" and interpret them as rules, then it loses this selling point.

 

[Umbran]

I like this a lot as a GM, because it gives me a strong sense that I, too, am playing the game and have to think about this important resource. It makes "vs players" more fun because it is more fair.

The GM for the game I play in has a screen with a wire bar at the top, with beads strung on it. So, the amount of Fear he has to work with, and how much the antagonists are chewing up, is always visible.

 

[zakael19]

The GM for the game I play in has a screen with a wire bar at the top, with beads strung on it. So, the amount of Fear he has to work with, and how much the antagonists are chewing up, is always visible.

The game explicitly tells GMs to do this (have Fear visible to the players at all times).

Also on the page about Fear:

“Tip: As with any GM move, spending Fear shouldn’t undermine the players’ fun. Fear is a tool for you to enhance the scene, create dramatic tension, and raise the stakes, not to shut down a PC’s heroic actions.”

Also:

“You can always improvise a Fear Feature for an adversary, even if they already have predetermined Fear Features.

Just spend a Fear and come up with a big adversary move that might otherwise feel overpowered or arbitrary (see the upcoming “Improvising Fear Moves” section).”

I do this a fair bit when a combat needs a little more verve or to highlight something in the fiction the adversary is filling. “Ok, I’m going to spend a Fear here to…” is like a magic phrase that gets buy in to do a big dramatic scene changing Thing that makes the players go “oooooh snap.”

 

[Vael]

I think there's a certain evangelical nature to some DH fans, this feeds this "right way to play" mentality, but I don't subscribe to that part of it, and reading the long list of influences that Daggerheart draws from (it's in the book), it's clear to me the designers feel the same.

But to echo others here, having Fear feels great as a GM, because it means I have an explicit resource to manage and players can see when I'm full on Fear. And that things will get dicey and that's all very good for the social contract of a TTRPG.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think there's a certain evangelical nature to some DH fans, this feeds this "right way to play" mentality, but I don't subscribe to that part of it, and reading the long list of influences that Daggerheart draws from (it's in the book), it's clear to me the designers feel the same.

But to echo others here, having Fear feels great as a GM, because it means I have an explicit resource to manage and players can see when I'm full on Fear. And that things will get dicey and that's all very good for the social contract of a TTRPG.

This. And there's a whole lot of utter nonsense I feel empowered to play and my players accept as fair simply because I spent a Fear which would feel unfair if I just did it with no resources. I sometimes refer to Fear as my shoulder demon.