Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[Imaro]

Ashley also loves gambling. Facing some great win vs some terrible consequence is right up her alley, and she was so incredibly tempted by the option. After that, people saw just how incredibly hype her Risk-it-All moment was and the excitement became infectious.

I get this but that's kind of my point the mechanics don't incentivize picking the death option that would create the most satisfying narrative outcome in the moment... they're pretty much silent on it and so that peer pressure, or excitement, or whatever is what becomes the motivating factor.

Another example from AoU is Sam and the early episode where he faces death... his character up to this point has been played as pretty much a nervous, cautious almost coward type character. Perfect type of character to take the unconscious with scar option and he instead chose the risk it all... it felt weird to me because if there was any character that felt like they would escape a dangerous situation by happenstance, luck or fleeing it was his character but for whatever reason (probably the mentioned excitement) he chose the risk it all option. Yeah the more I think about it the more I feel like the risk it all option might be a weird choice to include in a narrative game.

 

[Imaro]

You spend them to add a bonus, but the GM is encouraged to look at them when judging what a character can accomplish/know/etc without any roll (or perhaps by just paying a cost).

Yes but this is just GM fiat... and most games, even 5e do this when it comes to things the PC would resonably know/be able to accomplish.

My players brought a couple of their experiences up as a baseline and I used them in adjudicating the situation. Additionally, they were using the more “instinct / belief” one to guide actions and roleplay already.

The problem is a less experienced, or even just a GM who reads/sees the game differently from you could adjudicate those same situations in a less favorable (...or admittedly more favorable) way. As far as using the experiences as a guide to roleplay... again these are no different from the beliefs, flaws, etc. of D&D 5e when used this way... nothing mechanically incentivizes a player to use these in this way.

 

[dbm]

the mechanics don't incentivize picking the death option that would create the most satisfying narrative outcome in the moment...

I disagree; if you pick the death option you get to act and that is an automatic critical success. Sounds like an incentive to me.

The factor X you are missing here is that Matt made it clear that, if the characters dies, they won’t get a replacement character as it was just a short campaign. That isn’t a normal circumstance and it is a very strong meta reason why none of the CR gang would pick the death option at this stage. Let’s see how that plays out in episode 8?

 

[Imaro]

I disagree; if you pick the death option you get to act and that is an automatic critical success. Sounds like an incentive to me.

How does this incentivize it to happen at a narratively appropriate moment? I definitely can see it being used at a narratively appropriate moment if the player chooses too (as with most things in all games) but I can also see it being used in a random moment of frustration or in a minor encounter because the player has grown tired of playing their PC... what pushes using this out come when it is narratively appropriate or relevant vs. when it's not or even choosing one of the others?

It seems the prevailing answer to this is... because the players will... but on reddit and even here there are rising complaints about players not playing the game in the spirit it's meant, or trying to make it into D&D or Pathfinder... my point is that the game does very little to proactively drive the type of play it espouses... while mixing a large tactical element onto it's narrative elements that pulls the game exactly in the direction many claim is not playing the game correctly.

The factor X you are missing here is that Matt made it clear that, if the characters dies, they won’t get a replacement character as it was just a short campaign. That isn’t a normal circumstance and it is a very strong meta reason why none of the CR gang would pick the death option at this stage. Let’s see how that plays out in episode 8?

Someone already picked the death option and narratively it worked because their arc and major anatagonists had already been dealt with... but again there was no mechanical incentive for them to pick it at the time they did (the crit had little to no effect on the overall encounter)... and I'd argue it probably would have been more narratively satisfying if they had chosen it when the party was facing their specific major nemesis.

 

[zakael19]

Yes but this is just GM fiat... and most games, even 5e do this when it comes to things the PC would resonably know/be able to accomplish.

I mean yes but also it’s a pretty explicit “I’m good at this because of what my life has been” set of fictional permissions and the game spends an entire paragraph telling the GM how to think about it. There’s a lot of abilities you can take in games like Blades or PBTAs that are “when you’re in a situation, you can just do X” and some of the sample Experiences (and obviously the ones you add based on what happens during play) should enable the same thing:

When determining whether or not a roll is necessary, always consider a PC’s Experiences and narrative history. For example, if a PC has the “Expert Climber” Experience and they’re attempting to scale a wall with no danger around, you might decide they don’t need to roll—they can just do it. If the climb would be tricky due to weather, but you don’t want the story to focus on what happens if they fail, you might offer them the option of marking a Stress in exchange for climbing
without a roll. A character’s history should lessen their need to roll things they’re experienced in—you should introduce rolls only when circumstances fall outside of their Experience, such as the PC trying to climb while archers rain arrows down from parapets above.

 

[dbm]

I definitely can see it being used at a narratively appropriate moment if the player chooses too

That’s the answer to your question. The player decides, not the rules.

 

[Imaro]

I mean yes but also it’s a pretty explicit “I’m good at this because of what my life has been” set of fictional permissions and the game spends an entire paragraph telling the GM how to think about it. There’s a lot of abilities you can take in games like Blades or PBTAs that are “when you’re in a situation, you can just do X” and some of the sample Experiences (and obviously the ones you add based on what happens during play) should enable the same thing:

Again the advice you are citing is standard in many traditional rpg's including D&D. You don't roll for trivial things or challenges your PC would succeed at automatically.

Funnily enough experiences are supposed to be these character defining elements that facilitate roleplay and speak to who your character is but the suggestion by the book in a standard battle-focused campaign is that your first one help in combat. What that tells me as a player is look at the type of campaign and pick one based on what would be most advantageous in that style of campaign not based on the background or character of my PC.

 

[Imaro]

That’s the answer to your question. The player decides, not the rules.

So no mechanical incentivization... That was my point. And it's not about the rules deciding, it's about the rules rewarding the play loop or type of play the game seeks to create. How does the game reward or push towards using the different death moves at narratively appropriate moments in the game?

 

[dbm]

The incentive is an automatic crit success for the characters final action. The player decides if that is worth it or not, based on the context.

You can argue that it is a poor incentive, you can’t say it doesn’t exist.

I think it is a fine incentive personally.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

There’s a lot of advice within the rulebook of different ways to pursue interconnected character arcs. The character creation and session zero instructions direct some of this, and large parts of the book instruct GMs on how to use this to construct A, B, and C-plot lines that interweave characters and their backstories with each other and the larger threat facing the world.

<snip>

All across this game are reminders, examples and support for play that is about stories and not just maximizing your build.

This is an excellent articulation of what sets Daggerheart apart—not just in tone, but in structural intent. The mechanics you highlight don’t force narrative outcomes, but they actively permit them in a way that’s rare. The “Avoid Death” move, the evolving Experiences, even the attention to disability as identity—all of it points to a system that doesn’t optimize for efficiency, but for expressive play.

Some players may look for direct mechanical rewards for narrative choices, but that’s not the kind of contract Daggerheart is making. It assumes that meaning comes from the table, not from a payout system. The mechanics serve to lower the friction, not dictate the path. That’s a deliberate inversion of how most traditional roleplaying systems function—and it won’t suit every group—but it’s clearly intentional.

And the core rulebook is remarkably direct about this. It doesn’t just offer advice—it gives you the tools, all in one place. No splatbooks, no supplements required. Anyone who reads it front to back will come away with a clear understanding of what kind of game this is, how it works, and whether it aligns with how their group plays. The only thing it can’t do is read itself for you.