Daggerheart Discussion

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I think you're confusing my understanding of the game's purpose and my noting how some people respond to it.

I'm quite aware of what its trying to do. I have considerable sympathy for that.

What I'm doing, however, is noting why that doesn't work for other people and trying to dispel some of the frustration I get from proponents of that purpose that other people aren't responding well, by noting that it doesn't matter how well it does what its trying to do if that fundamentally works against some people's desires. Because in practice it may well be that doing what its trying to do better may make it actually more of a problem for them.

This isn't a judgement call about it; if I was doing that I'd be criticizing how well it served its apparent purpose. Its noting why its intrinsically a bad tool for the job for some.

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'm going to suggest that isn't entirely possible without reworking the game consiserably, because of how critical Hope and Fear are in too much of the game structure. I've already noted that it was far more acceptable to the people in the game I played in for a number of reasons, including the GM only dipping lightly into the consequence pool (in the form of the most minimal and mechanistic forms) and the fact that the game leans into (at least at Tier One) player success much more heavily than, say, PbtAs tend to. But to someone even more severely sensetive to this, I think the Fear acquisition mechanic would still be fraught there. You'd have to disconnect the Hope and Fear acquisition from the die rolls in a way I suspect would have likely undesirable ripple effects.

 

[Teemu]

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.

As someone who overall prefers DH, I don't think this is true. 5e and 5.5e have more tactical crunch and bits to interact with, so if you play DH with a trad mindset, you end up with a worse 5e in my opinion. 5.5e is more balanced in terms of combat than DH, and 5e as a whole will feel richer in texture if you play DH without its story focused elements. I know Derek from Knights of Last Call has been using what you said as a bit, but he hasn't actually played DH properly yet so he might change his opinion after more practical experience with the game.

 

[Reynard]

As someone who overall prefers DH, I don't think this is true. 5e and 5.5e have more tactical crunch and bits to interact with, so if you play DH with a trad mindset, you end up with a worse 5e in my opinion. 5.5e is more balanced in terms of combat than DH, and 5e as a whole will feel richer in texture if you play DH without its story focused elements. I know Derek from Knights of Last Call has been using what you said as a bit, but he hasn't actually played DH properly yet so he might change his opinion after more practical experience with the game.

This is only true if you care about tactical crunch, which I don't think most 5E players do (as evidenced by most 5E players' lack of concern about learning the rules or their character's abilities). The lower numbr of options in DH actually makes the game easier to play, especially if folks use cards.

I do agree, though, that if you want something different than a PC focused neo-trad playstyle, 5E has more flexibility.

 

[SteveC]

As someone who overall prefers DH, I don't think this is true. 5e and 5.5e have more tactical crunch and bits to interact with, so if you play DH with a trad mindset, you end up with a worse 5e in my opinion. 5.5e is more balanced in terms of combat than DH, and 5e as a whole will feel richer in texture if you play DH without its story focused elements. I know Derek from Knights of Last Call has been using what you said as a bit, but he hasn't actually played DH properly yet so he might change his opinion after more practical experience with the game.

I will have to do a hard disagree here. I'm just finishing up a 5E D&D campaign, and we're all level 20. We use flanking, and other tactical combat rules precisely because there isn't much substance to D&D combat, tactical-wise. I have only played DH to level three, but I found that we put much more effort into combinations when we were in combat. My group defense and buffing character didn't do that much damage, but was the consistent MVP for combats.

I found the combats in DH to be consistently more interesting and engaging than low-level D&D. Now, we didn't play to higher tiers, but there's nothing to indicate to me that it was going to get less interesting.

The mechanics of environments and monsters that weren't just blobs of hit points kept it feeling fresh to us. Now, of course, DH has far fewer monsters than D&D, so I expect that point of "we've seen all of this" would hit sooner, but that's a solution for a full-on monster and environment book.

I'm not here to bag on D&D, in fact (heaven help me) after our level 20 game is done, we're going back to first level to start over in another game from a first-time DM, but I'll honestly tell you that's a group choice and not mine.

 

[zakael19]

My personal opinion:

If you're the sort of player who posts things like "Looking for a game with 70% Roleplay / 30% combat" or similar like I see on Reddit a lot, so basically vibes based 5e, DH is probably a smoother experience for you.

If you're the sort of player who wants dramatic spotlight moments in a charged conflict like teaming up to have one of you jump on top of a charging ogre while the other chops at its legs and have that all translate seamlessly into a loosely "balanced" power fantasy combat, DH can give you want you want.

If you're the sort of player who really likes Save vs Suck encounter winning play, or comboing up that style of "build to one-round end things intentionally" without a ton of extra tactical overhead, something like 5e is probably better for you.

 

[Teemu]

I will have to do a hard disagree here. I'm just finishing up a 5E D&D campaign, and we're all level 20. We use flanking, and other tactical combat rules precisely because there isn't much substance to D&D combat, tactical-wise. I have only played DH to level three, but I found that we put much more effort into combinations when we were in combat. My group defense and buffing character didn't do that much damage, but was the consistent MVP for combats.

I found the combats in DH to be consistently more interesting and engaging than low-level D&D. Now, we didn't play to higher tiers, but there's nothing to indicate to me that it was going to get less interesting.

The mechanics of environments and monsters that weren't just blobs of hit points kept it feeling fresh to us. Now, of course, DH has far fewer monsters than D&D, so I expect that point of "we've seen all of this" would hit sooner, but that's a solution for a full-on monster and environment book.

I'm not here to bag on D&D, in fact (heaven help me) after our level 20 game is done, we're going back to first level to start over in another game from a first-time DM, but I'll honestly tell you that's a group choice and not mine.

Note that I'm saying that DH if played dry and without buy-in would end up worse than 5e. If you simply rolled attacks and used spells and abilities as if playing 5e, and made action rolls as if resolving a Perception or Stealth check and the like in 5e. That I think would be more boring than 5e because 5e has more mechanically complex spells and arguably monsters, and the combat rules have more crunchy bits to interact with compared to DH if you don't want to engage with the Hope/Fear results as instructed by the book.

 

[Reynard]

Note that I'm saying that DH if played dry and without buy-in would end up worse than 5e. If you simply rolled attacks and used spells and abilities as if playing 5e, and made action rolls as if resolving a Perception or Stealth check and the like in 5e. That I think would be more boring than 5e because 5e has more mechanically complex spells and arguably monsters, and the combat rules have more crunchy bits to interact with compared to DH if you don't want to engage with the Hope/Fear results as instructed by the book.

But why would you presume "dry and without buying in" as a starting point?

 

[Teemu]

But why would you presume "dry and without buying in" as a starting point?

It’s not the starting point, it was in response to a comment on how DH is seen by some as being at least as good as 5e or better even when you don’t use the Hope/Fear results to introduce additional benefits or complications or otherwise follow the book’s guidance on the play structure but instead play it trad like traditional D&D.

I personally don’t think DH works that well if you ignore the duality dice resolution system’s narrative functionality because the mechanics themselves are fairly simple and the monsters aren’t as well balanced in a vacuum vs 5.5e.

 

[Reynard]

It’s not the starting point, it was in response to a comment on how DH is seen by some as being at least as good as 5e or better even when you don’t use the Hope/Fear results to introduce additional benefits or complications or otherwise follow the book’s guidance on the play structure but instead play it trad like traditional D&D.

I personally don’t think DH works that well if you ignore the duality dice resolution system’s narrative functionality because the mechanics themselves are fairly simple and the monsters aren’t as well balanced in a vacuum vs 5.5e.

Unless you are REALLY into player character options, there is nothing IMO you can do ith 5E that you can't o with Daggerheart.

ALso, I don't think people are generally advocating "ignoring the narrative aspects of the duality dice." Rather, they are saying that you don't have to exhaust yourself. Sometimes taking the Hope or Fear and shifting the spotlight is enough.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Unless you are REALLY into player character options, there is nothing IMO you can do ith 5E that you can't o with Daggerheart.

People often are though. One of our players commented he'd probably get bored with DH over time.

ALso, I don't think people are generally advocating "ignoring the narrative aspects of the duality dice." Rather, they are saying that you don't have to exhaust yourself. Sometimes taking the Hope or Fear and shifting the spotlight is enough.

That did seem to be our group's reaction.