Daggerheart Discussion

[Thomas Shey]

Remember, consequence doesn't always mean the PC gets hosed. It just means the narrative is moved forward. The level of the consequence equals the risk, the narrative is meant to inform how the story evolves.

So, in a trad game, if a PC fails their roll to pick a lock, the GM says, "You're unable to pick the lock, what do you do?"

In a narrative game, if the PC is being quiet, trying to pick the lock, and fails with fear, the GM might say, "You're unable to pick the lock. As you look at it in frustration, you hear voices down the dark hall. What do you do?"

Yes, but again, this still ignores the fact that in the traditional game if the voices come down the hall, that's unconnected with the player's die rolls. Its entirely based on whatever timing the GM has decided on the guards or whatever showing up. The difference very much matters to some people.

"The narrative moves forward" is a nice phrase, but I have to again suggest that the connection with Fear is unlikely to mean it moves forward in a way that feels positive to a fair number of people. Again, this can be foreign to people who consider "The situation has become more interesting" as a virtue. A lot--maybe the majority of players--are consciously or subconsciously trying to make the situation less interesting. They consider making the point of the game for the GM to complicate a situation and for them to simplify it. If their die rolls ar making it more complicated that's going to feel like a failure state.

This is not particularly unknown. Its the basis of the line about players optimizing the fun out of games given a chance. Some are self-aware enough to draw a line in that zone, but still are not interested or capable of adjusting their expectations during play.

Again, one can find that an undesirable trait, but I don't think it does understanding of what does and doesn't work in game design for some people and how much one cares about that.

(As I noted, my wife who very much lands in this category didn't have a big problem with Daggerheart because of the combination of the GM using fairly minimalist consequences (just the spotlight taking and the Fear accumulation--the latter of course allows other complicating issues, but the indirect nature of it makes it feel less severe). Her only complaint--and she's had this in other games--is she's not a big fan of player-facing resources dependent on random die rolls, and it jumped out at her because she rolled almost no Success-with-Hope (she rolled several crits so she still got some Hope, but the ratio of Fear she was generating relative to Hope was pretty lobsided, but that sort of swing is just smething that will happen with resources acquired from dice rolls, which is why she's not a fan).

 

[Reynard]

I prefer the dice to determine when the bad things happen, as GM. That's as fair as you can get.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I prefer the dice to determine when the bad things happen, as GM. That's as fair as you can get.

It probably is, but it doesn't have to be as a consequence of player-side resolution rolls. Again, its the sense of the bad thing being connected to the player's roll--and thus the player--that some people have a problem with. Some people may be not big fans of things like random encounter rolls and the like, but that's usually on other grounds.

 

[Agamon]

I prefer the dice to determine when the bad things happen, as GM. That's as fair as you can get.

Or the fact that newer GMs won't think of doing that at all. Just, "You failed." crickets

Rules have trouble helping bad GMs, but they can certainly help newbies.

 

[Agamon]

"The narrative moves forward" is a nice phrase, but I have to again suggest that the connection with Fear is unlikely to mean it moves forward in a way that feels positive to a fair number of people. Again, this can be foreign to people who consider "The situation has become more interesting" as a virtue. A lot--maybe the majority of players--are consciously or subconsciously trying to make the situation less interesting. They consider making the point of the game for the GM to complicate a situation and for them to simplify it. If their die rolls ar making it more complicated that's going to feel like a failure state.

This is a good point. In a similar vein, there's been a lot of talk about how in some games, players looking at a game as something more competitive, whether consciously or subconsciously, tend to think it's nifty to min/max all weakness out of their PC, because fail=bad. (And it's hard to blame them when failing is just a reply of "You fail. Next?")

I try to explain to some of my players that when things go wrong, that's a new problem to solve, which should be where the fun comes from. I guess it depends what one is looking for from an RPG. If one just wants to chuck math rocks and make bag'o'hp go down, for example, narrative nuance is not important.

 

[zakael19]

Or the fact that newer GMs won't think of doing that at all. Just, "You failed." crickets

Rules have trouble helping bad GMs, but they can certainly help newbies.

I wish the GMs when I'd been playing 5e had this sort of system support and the idea of "fail forward" and "reframe on a roll" presented to them in a guide to running games instead of what I actually played. Probably would've had a lot more fun!

Turns out just saying "yeah so on a success here, probably X, but on a failure you can tell that Y" is super easy; and you can adjudicate within that based on the Hope/Fear outcomes. It's so fun.

 

[Reynard]

I wish the GMs when I'd been playing 5e had this sort of system support and the idea of "fail forward" and "reframe on a roll" presented to them in a guide to running games instead of what I actually played. Probably would've had a lot more fun!

Turns out just saying "yeah so on a success here, probably X, but on a failure you can tell that Y" is super easy; and you can adjudicate within that based on the Hope/Fear outcomes. It's so fun.

Yeah, I know everyone is different and has different preferences, but it is really hard for me to grok how having more nuance and more information and more room on a die roll can be construed as a bad thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is a good point. In a similar vein, there's been a lot of talk about how in some games, players looking at a game as something more competitive, whether consciously or subconsciously, tend to think it's nifty to min/max all weakness out of their PC, because fail=bad. (And it's hard to blame them when failing is just a reply of "You fail. Next?")

Or even worse. That's why some people are really hostile to fumble systems.

(There's a discussion that can be had about framing failures as just a consequence of outside events the PC doesn't actually have control over--the climbing roll that fails because of the grip crumbling under their weight, or failing avoiding a hit because of their foot landing on a bad spot--but it tends to go down a lot of other ratholes).

I try to explain to some of my players that when things go wrong, that's a new problem to solve, which should be where the fun comes from. I guess it depends what one is looking for from an RPG. If one just wants to chuck math rocks and make bag'o'hp go down, for example, narrative nuance is not important.

Even ones that want more than that still sometimes don't want new problems to come from themselves. As you say, it can be kind of an adverserial approach in some ways, but, well, there's a lot of that out there at least in its less malignant forms.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I know everyone is different and has different preferences, but it is really hard for me to grok how having more nuance and more information and more room on a die roll can be construed as a bad thing.

As I said, that isn't the issue per se. Let me give an example: the following is a possible die roll range where you have more nuance and information provided that few of the people I'm talking about would have issues with it. The percentages applied are assuming competent but not extraordinary skill, and a normal level of difficulty:

5% Critical: The attempted task not only succeeds, but but provides an additional benefit.
55%: Success: The attempted task succeeds.
10%: Mitigated Failure: The task does not succeed, but some benefit is gained anyway.
25% Failure: The task fails, but does not make the situation worse beyond what failure would normally suggest in the situation.
5% Fumble: The attempt not only fails, but does so in a way that makes the situation worse beyond what simple failure would suggest.

Note that three of these results provide additional information. Note, however, not only the lean of the probabilities, but how they're framed; none of the situations that are not an unmixed success are framed as successes. (Yes, this does exclude the possibiility of success with consequences. You could probably put that in with the Mitigated failure and they'd be okay with it.)

 

[SteveC]

"The narrative moves forward" is a nice phrase, but I have to again suggest that the connection with Fear is unlikely to mean it moves forward in a way that feels positive to a fair number of people. Again, this can be foreign to people who consider "The situation has become more interesting" as a virtue. A lot--maybe the majority of players--are consciously or subconsciously trying to make the situation less interesting. They consider making the point of the game for the GM to complicate a situation and for them to simplify it. If their die rolls ar making it more complicated that's going to feel like a failure state.

In looking at comments like this (and I see a lot of them), I have to think that you might not be looking for what Daggerheart is trying to do. It's a narrative game, and it wants die rolls, success or not, to move the Fiction forward. Not everyone wants that in a game, but that's the kind of game Daggerheart is trying to give you. That's the advice it is giving you from the GM side.

But you can definitely play Daggerheart without that narrative style. As has been said many times, you end up with a better version of 5E. (And I know that's a highly subjective term, not trying to yuck on 5E). The problem with playing Daggerheart not to its strengths, and even in opposition to them, is that you have to go on your own for guidance.

I'd say an experienced GM who knows what they and their players want can do this with almost any system. But they're on their own when the game is heading in the other direction.

I really like Daggerheart, but my playgroup wasn't up for it. They didn't buy the premise. So running it would end up being an exercise in frustration for me because I'd have to not play to its strengths.

And that means I'm running Nimble, a very different game, but one that the group wanted to engage with. It makes me sad (okay, just a little), but I am running what they're asking for. And looking for a Daggerheart game to play in.