Daggerheart Discussion

[Thomas Shey]

The idea that DH has somehow failed in its design because of moderately limited choices in character development is interesting given how popular OSR games are with essentially NO options.

Well, its possible people would have trouble with those too. I'm not sure DH is really fishing in the same pond.

My issue with character classes in DH isn't how limited in options they are; it's how specific they are (as in implied setting).

People seem to have a wide range of what they expect in this regard; note some of the discussion of Draw Steel classes at some point.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Are other games with clear movement more tactical? Sure, at least some of them (4E yes, Beacon yes, Wyrdwood wand yes, Lancer most likely, Draw Steel maybe, PF2 not really).

I've got to say I find saying PF2e is not more tactical than 13th Age interesting. The latter may be more focused on resource management than the former, but that's not all there is to tactical play.

 

[zakael19]

I’ll be honest, when we’re doing stars and wishes stuff at the end of session and a player flat out says unprompted that “this is the most fun I’ve had playing a D&D style game” or “I was a little worried when the tower looked like a dungeon because of how boring puzzles and combat-heavy they’ve been in my experience but actually that was awesome, the most fun I’ve had in a frame like that” or “my favorite part of play so far is actually how fluid and open it is to go from exploration to rising tension to fighting and back out because everything we do that makes sense you let the dice play out, and Daggerheart perfectly accommodates that”

I’m gonna like, believe them?

And when a player tosses out their wishes on what they’d like to see next in terms of gameplay or focus or highlights and then we do that together as a collaborating table and they say how fun that was and how they’d like to do even more of whatever, I assume they’re being honest?

And when that’s just the table norm, and people keep saying these things over and over, maybe when I use that as my basis to talk about how my groups find a ruleset to give them exactly what they want, it’s not me “speaking for them” but just relaying their words? Especially since multiple members have said they’ve decided to try running DH themselves with how much fun they have playing it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’ll be honest, when we’re doing stars and wishes stuff at the end of session and a player flat out says unprompted that “this is the most fun I’ve had playing a D&D style game” or “I was a little worried when the tower looked like a dungeon because of how boring puzzles and combat-heavy they’ve been in my experience but actually that was awesome, the most fun I’ve had in a frame like that” or “my favorite part of play so far is actually how fluid and open it is to go from exploration to rising tension to fighting and back out because everything we do that makes sense you let the dice play out, and Daggerheart perfectly accommodates that”

I’m gonna like, believe them?

And when a player tosses out their wishes on what they’d like to see next in terms of gameplay or focus or highlights and then we do that together as a collaborating table and they say how fun that was and how they’d like to do even more of whatever, I assume they’re being honest?

And when that’s just the table norm, and people keep saying these things over and over, maybe when I use that as my basis to talk about how my groups find a ruleset to give them exactly what they want, it’s not me “speaking for them” but just relaying their words? Especially since multiple members have said they’ve decided to try running DH themselves with how much fun they have playing it.

I'm going to be honest here.

While Tigris is overgeneralizing about this, and there's no reason a GM cannot make an effort to understand what his players think of his game, he's also not wrong that a lot of players have been taught that honesty in their response to games is as welcome at the GM's end of the table as day old fish. This often means that even when playing with a GM that might be much more willing to accept criticism, they'll keep it to themselves. This is made all the worse by some people who think someone playing in a game that isn't ideal for them may well drag the game down, because they may well rather play even in a suboptimal game than not play at all.

Now in your particular case it sounds like your players were very proactive about telling you they liked what the game was providing. So its unlikely to just be a case of passive avoidance of criticism.

But that only works if we take your statements at face value, and given I've seen people claim players were great about [game operation process X] when I've talked to some of same players and seen them privately say to the contrary, I can understand taking such statements with a grain of salt. But in the end, if you're not going to trust someone's understanding of what's going on in their game, I think it pays to simply disengage with them when that comes up, since otherwise you're accusing them of either lying or being deluded. That may, in fact, be your view of it, but it hardly seems a viable basis for discussion.

Edit: Essentially, I'm suggesting to @Tigris that he'd be better off giving you the benefit of the doubt here even if he's dubious, because otherwise it seems pointlessly confrontational.

 

[Faolyn]

Around 3-3.5 hours. We play weekly.

Yeah, that's probably too short a time. When I was running Monster of the Week, I learned that we should really do the end-of-session questions every other session, because otherwise they were advancing way too quickly.

 

[zakael19]

I'm going to be honest here.

While Tigris is overgeneralizing about this, and there's no reason a GM cannot make an effort to understand what his players think of his game, he's also not wrong that a lot of players have been taught that honesty in their response to games is as welcome at the GM's end of the table as day old fish. This often means that even when playing with a GM that might be much more willing to accept criticism, they'll keep it to themselves. This is made all the worse by some people who think someone playing in a game that isn't ideal for them may well drag the game down, because they may well rather play even in a suboptimal game than not play at all.

Now in your particular case it sounds like your players were very proactive about telling you they liked what the game was providing. So its unlikely to just be a case of passive avoidance of criticism.

But that only works if we take your statements at face value, and given I've seen people claim players were great about [game operation process X] when I've talked to some of same players and seen them privately say to the contrary, I can understand taking such statements with a grain of salt. But in the end, if you're not going to trust someone's understanding of what's going on in their game, I think it pays to simply disengage with them when that comes up, since otherwise you're accusing them of either lying or being deluded. That may, in fact, be your view of it, but it hardly seems a viable basis for discussion.

Edit: Essentially, I'm suggesting to @Tigris that he'd be better off giving you the benefit of the doubt here even if he's dubious, because otherwise it seems pointlessly confrontational.

Ok, no, I dont think you and him get to do this. The entire line of discussion started from @Tigris asserting that basically all table would be better off running pre-written adventures then what DH tells tables to actually collaborate together to do in the text.

Neonchameleon and I pushed back by saying that (as both players and GMs I'm assuming here since at least from my seat I've been on both sides, and playing with and talking to a large number of folks both within our play groups and across this site and the internet), that's a deep overgeneralization at best, as we've had the best experiences as tables with games that have a significant degree of open ended play.

He then starting doing all sorts of arguing that "oh we're just GMs and players never tell the truth" and other nonsense to argue against that point. That we can have an incredibly fulfilling experience as a table by "playing to find out" a loose structure with the sort of prep that DH's text tells you to do and the principles it asks the players and GM alike to bring.

So no, I reject your assertion that somehow we're just making this stuff up because "we're GMs and players lie" instead of arguing the side that follows the principles DH espouses to an delightful game - and there's tons of posts across the internet (and again, my apparently invalid personal experience including multiple players who have been inspired to go run DH themselves) saying the same thing, that not doing pre-written adventures works great for most people playing this game.

For some? Sure - a pre-written adventure may work better. Some people genuinely cannot improv at all. My wife is one of those, she listens to me play games, tried a bit, and simply cannot be a player much less a GM. Hopefully stuff like Drakkenheim which provides structure as written but still is going to leave plenty of space to find out what happens without expecting explicit plot beats to be hit comes out to serve that need.

Many of the rest of us will keep working with our tables to build worlds together along themes and tales we want to tell and have a great time.

 

[Reynard]

These discussions always give me the sense that some portion of the Very Opinionated have never actually played Daggerheart. It's exhausting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, no, I dont think you and him get to do this.

I get to point out a general position if I want to. You can decide I'm including myself with him on his position if that's what you want to, but that's not what that post was about, and I don't feel a need to unpack if further to make you happy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

These discussions always give me the sense that some portion of the Very Opinionated have never actually played Daggerheart. It's exhausting.

I'm not actually Very Opinionated here in specific, because I've flat out said I've yet to play it. At most I've made some very general statements from a fairly cursory read of the SRD, which I tried to make clear was what i was doing. I can't speak for others here. The worst I've said is its probably a bit lightweight and broad strokes for me, and someone earlier who suggested it was deliberately fairly GM malable, that I'm not sold that's a general virtue. Other than that, by that passing read I'll say I think it'd be better for at least some people than something like classic PbtA games, because it does not appear to be quite as determined that tossing complications and the like is always a virtue. I'm still not sold everyone would love Success with Fear, but it doesn't at least seem to be the default result.