Daggerheart Discussion

[Thomas Shey]

In a PBTA, your options on a roll are a Hit, a Weak Hit (one with a complication / cost), or a Miss. In DH, you’ve got 5 potential outcomes (Greater Hit, Hit, Hit with complications, Miss with softer outcome, Miss with worst outcome); but the GM always has a non-escalatory out: mark a Stress / take the Fear.

What these rolls tell us is which way the narrative is going to go. Do you cleanly get your objective, or is there a new complication to deal with? Now what do you do?

The goal of play is to always frame out a grabby scene and then see what the players do, with no preconceptions. The roll outcomes when risk and drama are involved help the table understand how the player’s risky and heroic Actions go.

My experience is that my tables really like this. I’m willing to accept that I’m just that amazing of a GM, but I think the onboarding of players to the idea of rolls-> story -> drama based on what they are helps.

The five results certainly do help (as does the fact that at least combat target numbers are low enough that you can expect more reliable hits than necessarily is the case with people in a lot of PbtAs (it was instructive looking at everyone's Evade scores in a game rolling 2D12 and where most likely a lot of opponents at either end will at least have a point of bonus (I've been meaning to go back and look at the Tier One sample monsters to see how much this is the case at the other end, but I suspect watching how relatively few misses there were that it is). And I'm the first one to say that degree matters, so the fact that it isn't as dependent on good rolls absolutely matters (see my comment about my wife). In many ways its much closer to a typical matter-of-degree success systems; the sticky point is that the step three down in the success tree is easily perceived as a mild failure rather than a mild success.

I think your last paragraph is absolutely true, as long as you acknowledge that some people (and I stand by it being a fair number) may not be able to be fully onboarded there.

 

[Agamon]

That's the only important difference here, as @Agamon references above. My disagreement with him is as to whether it does or should bother some people.

I wouldn't say I disagree that such a thing should bother some people. I don't like PF2, it's rules bother me. So I just don't bother with it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wouldn't say I disagree that such a thing should bother some people. I don't like PF2, it's rules bother me. So I just don't bother with it.

And yet I don't feel a need to deny you exist or badmouth you because of that. Perhaps you should look at your reactions here in that regard.

 

[zakael19]

the sticky point is that the step three down in the success tree is easily perceived as a mild failure rather than a mild success.

If the player is predisposed to this, they shouldn't play DH or they should adjust their mentality by aligning with the player Principles and Best Practices. OTOH, the GM is also instructed over and over to not negate success on a Success with Fear. You get your goal, but there's a complication or cost (which is why "so it takes you some extra effort to do XYZ, say why and mark a Stress" is such a nice out).

I think that just like with a lot of PBTA play, GMs/groups who don't frame out a goal and stakes before a roll are going to get into trouble because that makes it much easier to negate an idea of success.

I've been meaning to go back and look at the Tier One sample monsters to see how much this is the case at the other end, but I suspect watching how relatively few misses there were that it is

T1 play mostly has like training wheels on it. The %s are extra player-biased at that tier, with a few exceptions that are probably going to be your profiles for like highly dramatic / arc concluding fights.

 

[Agamon]

And yet I don't feel a need to deny you exist or badmouth you because of that. Perhaps you should look at your reactions here in that regard.

I'm just speaking against a game where players enjoy having no consequence to their actions. Is this a combat as sport discussion in disguise? Maybe I'm just confused.
I apologize if my inference that your original assertion as "frustration" was off-base, that's just what it seemed like to me.

 

[Agamon]

If the player is predisposed to this, they shouldn't play DH or they should adjust their mentality by aligning with the player Principles and Best Practices. OTOH, the GM is also instructed over and over to not negate success on a Success with Fear. You get your goal, but there's a complication or cost (which is why "so it takes you some extra effort to do XYZ, say why and mark a Stress" is such a nice out).

I think that just like with a lot of PBTA play, GMs/groups who don't frame out a goal and stakes before a roll are going to get into trouble because that makes it much easier to negate an idea of success.



T1 play mostly has like training wheels on it. The %s are extra player-biased at that tier, with a few exceptions that are probably going to be your profiles for like highly dramatic / arc concluding fights.

Yes, letting the player know what could happen as a result of their action is important. The PC has so much more skill and context than the player has, the GM needs to spell it out.

Also, yeah, the book is very clear that rolling success is always a success, hope or fear be damned.

 

[Reynard]

I think if you assess "complication" as implying anything but a problem to most people, we're back to my thinking you're not understanding other perspectives.

They might not be severe problems, but, well, when you hear "there was a complication in surgery" people don't expect it went particularly well.



Like I said, the problem isn't hardship for the people I'm talking about; its that the hardship is normally directly or indirectly tied to some of their rolls.

Ah. I think i understand better. Thank you.

I guess what I would say is that it is easy for the GM to present the results of those die rolls as just moving the story forward. Complications aren't "negative" they are "interesting things that happen." Or, more importantly, they don't represent failure -- which is what (many) players really hate.

The advice in the DH book to the GM is explicit regarding Success With Fear: do not turn a success into a failure. The PC succeeded. Honor that. But the "fear" result adds a wrinkle.

But if players are more comfortable with binary results, that's cool. DH might not be for them. That's fine. Not every game is for everyone.

But let's not conflate that with "bad design" as some in this thread has tried to do.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the player is predisposed to this, they shouldn't play DH

As long as you accept that's a legitimate reaction to that, this is a perfectly fair response.

or they should adjust their mentality by aligning with the player Principles and Best Practices. OTOH, the GM is also instructed over and over to not negate success on a Success with Fear. You get your goal, but there's a complication or cost (which is why "so it takes you some extra effort to do XYZ, say why and mark a Stress" is such a nice out).

Its not that the success is negated so much as the question of how many steps forward and back is perecieved. And I'd suggest that's going to be a matter of perception. I mean, its entirely possible for a player to clearly succeed at what they're trying to do, and still get a consequence that makes them wish they hadn't tried. It probably shouldn't happen with the success-with-Fear case, but this is a case where assumption clash between GMs and players can create some problems.

I think that just like with a lot of PBTA play, GMs/groups who don't frame out a goal and stakes before a roll are going to get into trouble because that makes it much easier to negate an idea of success.

I the players know what sort of sonsequences the three lower cases can produce, that at least leaves them informed. It might still leave them trying to avoid making that roll though.

T1 play mostly has like training wheels on it. The %s are extra player-biased at that tier, with a few exceptions that are probably going to be your profiles for like highly dramatic / arc concluding fights.

Yeah, I would expect solo/boss types to not necessarily land within that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm just speaking against a game where players enjoy having no consequence to their actions. Is this a combat as sport discussion in disguise? Maybe I'm just confused.
I apologize if my inference that your original assertion as "frustration" was off-base, that's just what it seemed like to me.

I am not a person who is particularly bothered by the "consquence" mechanic. I play with several who can be, and have spoken to a number of others. If you have not seen many of my posts before, you wouldn't be aware that many of my discussions of problems are not about ones that are personal to me (there's a poster who I frustrate the heck out of because of that).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ah. I think i understand better. Thank you.

I always try to be at least clear in what I'm trying to express; I find its much less likely that a conversation will end up with two people talking past each other. Honestly, an exchange that makes it clear the participants have no common ground is better than that.

I guess what I would say is that it is easy for the GM to present the results of those die rolls as just moving the story forward. Complications aren't "negative" they are "interesting things that happen." Or, more importantly, they don't represent failure -- which is what (many) players really hate.

Certainly expressing it as something other than failure on the player's part can help--but it being triggered by their die roll is something not all of them are going to be able to get beyond.

(I also can't help but think if the consequence is going to be neutral, probably "complication" is a bad term, though I don't know what would be better and still make sense.)

The advice in the DH book to the GM is explicit regarding Success With Fear: do not turn a success into a failure. The PC succeeded. Honor that. But the "fear" result adds a wrinkle.

See my comment about regarding this.

But if players are more comfortable with binary results, that's cool. DH might not be for them. That's fine. Not every game is for everyone.

Its not necessarily that people can't deal with non-binary results; its a question of frequency and what degree of "complication" can go with an avowed success. As I said, if you present it as "failure with a consolation" I suspect some of them at least would have less of a negative response.

But let's not conflate that with "bad design" as some in this thread has tried to do.

Oh, I absolutely don't think its bad design. I'm mearly discussing why it might fail with people with a certin set of approaches. But there are no games that are for everyone.