Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[overgeeked]

This is very interesting. I agree it's a true bit of human psychology.

But I really wish that people would stop ascribing "magic" or "memory" or "will" to a set of plastic dice.

People have seemingly evolved to anthropomorphize everything.

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, that's a thing. As some others have mentioned, when playing games with complications besides just success/failure it doesn't feel as bad to get a complication thrown in the mix. But here it felt worse, for my players at least. It really did feel like a double or triple whammy.

The crit and success with hope are the only clean successes. Which is generally fine. The trouble is this stuff...

"ON A SUCCESS WITH FEAR…You get what you want, but it comes with a cost or consequence. The GM gains a Fear." Cost or consequence and GM fear. Double whammy.

"ON A FAILURE WITH HOPE…Things don’t go to plan. You probably don’t get what you want and there are consequences, but you gain a Hope." Fail and consequence. Double whammy.

"ON A FAILURE WITH FEAR…Things go very badly. You probably don’t get what you want, and a major consequence or complication occurs because of it. The GM gains a Fear." Fail and consequence or complication and GM fear. Triple whammy.

In most PbtA games the worst you get is a fail and consequence. Not the GM gaining a negative resource on top of that.

It should be either, or...not both. Something like the GM gains a fear that they can immediately spend to inflict a complication or save for later.

Yeah. Other than a house rule like the above I'm not sure how to do it. I like a lot of what they did, but I'm not sure how much play this one will get from me.

One thing that I do a lot in my PBTA games where a 7-9 result on an action tends to carry a "lesser success, cost, or consequence" is offer the players a choice. "I can see the cost being A and the consequence being B, what do you want?" seems to land really well, since the player feels like they have some input into the situation (even if it's just "pick one").

Additionally, I think that a lot of the time the Failure with Fear outcome might be immediately spending that Fear to do something as part of your action.

 

[overgeeked]

One thing that I do a lot in my PBTA games where a 7-9 result on an action tends to carry a "lesser success, cost, or consequence" is offer the players a choice. "I can see the cost being A and the consequence being B, what do you want?" seems to land really well, since the player feels like they have some input into the situation (even if it's just "pick one").

Yeah, that can absolutely work with the right kind of players. But that's not everyone. A lot of gamers I've played with would just say neither and get mad.

Borrowing the terminology from the video linked up thread, there are theater kids and math kids. The theater kids would revel in that kind of choice, the math kids would rebel against that kind of choice. To me, the trouble with Daggerheart is it seems to want to split the difference. It's built on a solid theater-kid game foundation of PbtA, BitD, etc but has all the added math to also try to pull in the math kids. In my experience they are two separate and distinct groups with separate and distinct preferences that are not going to play well together.

Additionally, I think that a lot of the time the Failure with Fear outcome might be immediately spending that Fear to do something as part of your action.

Sure. That would just make the players who complained even more angry about the situation. Making it a quadruple whammy. Fail, cost or consequence, fear gain, and immediate fear spend to make things even worse. To be clear, I don't think this is necessarily a problem with the game or its design, more that certain kinds of players would absolutely hate this.

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, that can absolutely work with the right kind of players. But that's not everyone. A lot of gamers I've played with would just say neither and get mad.

Borrowing the terminology from the video linked up thread, there are theater kids and math kids. The theater kids would revel in that kind of choice, the math kids would rebel against that kind of choice. To me, the trouble with Daggerheart is it seems to want to split the difference. It's built on a solid theater-kid game foundation of PbtA, BitD, etc but has all the added math to also try to pull in the math kids. In my experience they are two separate and distinct groups with separate and distinct preferences that are not going to play well together.

Sure. That would just make the players who complained even more angry about the situation. Making it a quadruple whammy. Fail, cost or consequence, fear gain, and immediate fear spend to make things even worse. To be clear, I don't think this is necessarily a problem with the game or its design, more that certain kinds of players would absolutely hate this.

No, I mean using the Fear to impose the Cost/Consequence. Eg: Fail with Fear on traversing the river and use the Environment's Fear effect (or tick a negative countdown forward, or whatever). Spending that Fear as that Hard Move.

Maybe I'm just consistently lucky with the sorts of players I have, but I haven't had any issues with "oh no not consequences" play in any of my PBTA/FITD games even with players coming directly from 5e exclusively. I'm very open and forward about the stakes involved in a roll, so that when I follow through with bad outcomes they knew it was on the table. When I put together my DH group I laid out how I understood the roll outcomes to be in a clear post and all the players were like "yeah that's exactly how we expect it as well."

 

[overgeeked]

No, I mean using the Fear to impose the Cost/Consequence. Eg: Fail with Fear on traversing the river and use the Environment's Fear effect (or tick a negative countdown forward, or whatever). Spending that Fear as that Hard Move.

Gotcha. Yeah, I suggested much the same up thread.

It should be either, or...not both. Something like the GM gains a fear that they can immediately spend to inflict a complication or save for later.

I think that might be a great house rule for Daggerheart.

Maybe I'm just consistently lucky with the sorts of players I have, but I haven't had any issues with "oh no not consequences" play in any of my PBTA/FITD games even with players coming directly from 5e exclusively. I'm very open and forward about the stakes involved in a roll, so that when I follow through with bad outcomes they knew it was on the table. When I put together my DH group I laid out how I understood the roll outcomes to be in a clear post and all the players were like "yeah that's exactly how we expect it as well."

I seem to have the opposite play experience despite a similar attempt to start on the same page with players.

 

[BruceWright]

...The trouble is this stuff...

"ON A SUCCESS WITH FEAR…You get what you want, but it comes with a cost or consequence. The GM gains a Fear." Cost or consequence and GM fear. Double whammy.

Of course the consequence can JUST be the GM gains a Fear if the GM deems it that story wise an additional outcome isn't necessary for narrative. This is illustrated in the Full Example of Play part of the rulebook.

I think you're counting the bummer things for the player, but not counting the "oh good" things.

This one is Player 1 GM 2... GM wins by 1. or at GM discretion, Player 1 GM 1... a push.

"ON A FAILURE WITH HOPE…Things don’t go to plan. You probably don’t get what you want and there are consequences, but you gain a Hope." Fail and consequence. Double whammy.

This is Player 1 GM 1.... a push.

"ON A FAILURE WITH FEAR…Things go very badly. You probably don’t get what you want, and a major consequence or complication occurs because of it. The GM gains a Fear." Fail and consequence or complication and GM fear. Triple whammy.

This is player 0 - GM 3 -- or at GM discretion Player 0 - GM 2.

You aren't listing the other states,

Success with Hope, Player 2 - GM 0

Critical success -- Success, Gain Hope, Clear a stress and Crit.
player 3 or 4 depending on if its combat. - GM 0


Final score of all permutations WITHOUT even using discretion and without counting the crit as an extra: Player 7 --- GM 6.

 

[BruceWright]

Adding to that, If they succeed or fail with hope, I also narrate or let the player narrate what that outcome looks like. So it's not just a Fear roll that changes that imposes a secondary flavor to an outcome. Succeeding with Hope is not just success plus a token. Its Success PLUS a different, better outcome, and Double PLUS they get a token/filled Hope slot.

 

[overgeeked]

Of course the consequence can JUST be the GM gains a Fear if the GM deems it that story wise an additional outcome isn't necessary for narrative. This is illustrated in the Full Example of Play part of the rulebook.

I think you're counting the bummer things for the player, but not counting the "oh good" things.

Yes, because this tangent started from my playtest experience of players getting super upset about all the negative effects of the dice mechanics. As mentioned during that discussion up thread, one player was so upset that despite me tracking the rolls and showing them that log they accused me of lying because it felt that they were constantly failing. So this whole tangent is about player perspective. Or at least my players' perspectives.

 

[BruceWright]

It's good to hear that perspective and helpful for me to be aware of as I introduce new players to the system.

I think mathematically the game isn't skewed against players who will be generating Hope 54% of the time (not even counting features that let you re-roll). But it's important to picture that indeed people remember failures more than they remember successes.

Since this was a playtest, were these in your mind them really being frustrated, or was it more a "hey if this is a playtest I'm here to tell you this game needs to change in these ways?"

It's interesting to me, DH, the game where you can just decide not to die when killed could be perceived as somehow more punishing than D&D or even perhaps Shadowdark.

 

[Elvish Lore]

I don't have players losing their minds over the system because I have the virtue of having assembled a new group to play Daggerheart rather than trying to convert over anyone. So everyone I found is into these types of PbtA games or they've investigated DH enough that they're interested in what it purportedly offers. These players are friendly towards these narrative game ideas but, at the same time, don't want to shun game mechanics and they like some level of system mastery.

On the other hand, I'm involved in several other rpg groups and, while there are people among them that would like to play something more narrative focused like DH, probably a good half of each group is in the 'omg, Pathfinder 2e is so much better than this, why play theater-kid nonsense like Daggerheart' column. In other words, rpgs where it's all about combat effectiveness are the only games they truly want to play. It definitely feels like some of you are contending with players who share similar beliefs.

For me, life is too short for this kind of teeth pulling. I suggest finding people who are more open to narrativist games.