Well, let's start by "are we both playing the game." And no, from your post it sounds like you have not played it yet, so....
Listen, I love me some theoryhammer for sure. And I don't think Daggerheart is an abysmal failure.
But there is no conversation to be had or ideas developed when people have not played it, or they blindly claim others are playing it wrong. That just shows bad-faith discussion. We were earnest in our attempt to play it, run it, have lots fun with it, and not ignore any parts of it = I expect others to respect that.
I don’t think it’s fair—or accurate—to dismiss what I’m saying as “bad faith” just because you assumed I haven’t played
Daggerheart yet. Regardless, the book is very clear about what to expect from this system. So no—what I’m offering isn’t just theory. I’ve been through this process before.
When I transitioned from D&D into
Star Wars FFG, I ran into similar struggles: dice results that didn’t feel binary, narrative pacing tied directly to mechanical outcomes, and a system that rewarded momentum and story over structure and tactics. It was disorienting at first. I kept second-guessing how I was “supposed” to GM. But once it clicked—once I let go of the need for symmetry and control—it became one of the most rewarding systems I’ve ever run.
Daggerheart clearly draws from that same lineage (
Genesys, FFG). I recognized the rhythm right away. So when I see players or GMs frustrated by the flow of Fear, or treating it like a punishment system, or expecting structured, turn-based pacing, I’m not judging—I’ve been there. But the answer usually isn’t “the system is broken.” It’s that the system is different—and expecting it to behave like D&D or PBTA is going to generate friction every time.
I never said anyone was playing the game “wrong.” What I’m saying is that the frustration sounds familiar—because I’ve experienced it in similar systems—and it often comes from trying to use old assumptions in a game designed to work differently. That’s not bad faith. That’s pattern recognition.
And honestly, a lot of that frustration could probably be resolved just by reading the parts of the Core Rulebook that are specifically written to help with exactly this.
The book is very clear about its intent:
“The game takes a fiction-first approach, encouraging players and GMs to act in good faith with one another and focus on the story they'retelling rather than the complexity of the mechanics.” (p. 4)
It also gives a full
Example of Play (pp. 134–137) that shows exactly how Fear is earned, held, and spent—not immediately, and not arbitrarily.
And right after that, the book follows up with
“Questions to Consider for GMs” (p. 138), where it walks through that same scene and asks the reader to reflect on how Fear was used, what could have gone differently, what the GM chose
not to do, and why. These are real questions like:
- “Do you feel like that was a satisfying end to the combat, or would you have...?”
- “Would you have chosen to use...?”
- “What would have been an interesting consequence if...?”
And so on.
This isn’t buried in flavor text—it’s a full breakdown of GM choices in context, showing that Fear is about pacing, not pressure. It’s not just what you
can do with Fear—it’s when, and
why, that actually matters.
So when I say the problems in this thread seem rooted in mismatched expectations, I’m not making assumptions. I’m pointing to what’s actually in the book. The answers are right there. If they’re being ignored, then yeah—my take is that the issue probably isn’t the system.
