Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[Jacob Lewis]

It gives all this advice and then it's tip for a player having trouble picking an experience in a standard battle campaign is to select their first one to make them better in combat... how is that not pushing them quite clearly towards mechanical optimization? It's weird because I agree the advice is there but then the mechanical incentives as well as the practical examples sometimes just don't align.

Let's look at the tip you're referring. I'll reprint it directly from the Core Rulebook, so we're all on the same page (20):

Tip: If you're not sure what Experiences to take, consider the style of the campaign you're playing in and the actions you'll want to perform. In a standard, battle-focused campaign, it's never a bad idea to take your character's first Experience in something that will help with combat and the second Experience in something useful outside of combat.

That tip doesn’t contradict the game’s ethos—it reflects it. It’s framed specifically for players unsure how to begin in a battle-focused campaign, and it still encourages balance (“combat and… something useful outside of combat”). The point is to align choices with the style of the campaign, not to steer every player toward optimization. That’s a flexible design principle, not a contradiction.

Daggerheart doesn’t pretend that combat doesn’t exist—it just doesn’t prioritize it above character growth, group storytelling, or narrative freedom. The rulebook consistently reinforces that your table decides what matters most, and the mechanics are there to support—not dictate—that focus.

The quoted passage on page 20 doesn’t prescribe an optimization strategy. It doesn’t say “this is how Experiences should be used.” It says: if you're unsure, consider the campaign tone, and it’s never a bad idea to include something that supports combat. That’s practical scaffolding for players who don’t yet have a strong narrative hook for their character—and even then, it advises balancing combat usefulness with something else. And in this case, it specifically references a battle-focused campaign as the context for that advice. Not because every campaign is battle-focused, or every character should be built this way. It’s the safe bet. It’s decent general advice for someone who’s still figuring things out. It’s not a cheat code or the secret to “playing it right.”

That’s especially clear with Experiences. These aren’t feats or skill trees—there’s no list to min-max from. They’re intentionally open-ended, giving players the space to define their character’s growth in their own terms. And because they cost Hope to use, they’re not passive bonuses. They don’t shape how players build their characters—they mark moments where the story itself is asserting weight. That makes them less about consistent advantage, and more about narrative punctuation.

 

[zakael19]

I disagree and I think you are conflating two separate elements. 5e (softly) encourages only rolling where there are stakes involved. But I think that generally, there is no equivalent in 5e to Experiences: this is something specific to my character that they are unquestionably good at. The nearest alternatives to Experiences that I can see are (1) expertise, which is available to a very limited number of classes, and (2) background in 2014, for which this functionality was removed in 2024.

Meanwhile, “Experiences impact fiction” (p 100) is a core GM mechanic. A character’s experiences should lessen their need to roll in situations they are experienced it.

It’s definitely closest to 13th Age’s Background mechanic (which inspired Experiences), where they’re mechanical widgets for bonuses to Actions but also a way to denote narrative character growth that can be used as a Flag & as a set of permissions.

 

[Imaro]

I disagree and I think you are conflating two separate elements. 5e (softly) encourages only rolling where there are stakes involved. But I think that generally, there is no equivalent in 5e to Experiences: this is something specific to my character that they are unquestionably good at. The nearest alternatives to Experiences that I can see are (1) expertise, which is available to a very limited number of classes, and (2) background in 2014, for which this functionality was removed in 2024.

I don't think experiences really signify things you are unquestionably good at(...at least no moreso than a 5e Fighter having more skill points in Athletics and a higher Str attribute while a Rogue has no skill points and a minimal modifier) or necessarily unique. There are some pretty standard examples and there can also be heavy crossover in capability... In my group I saw this manifest when one player chose wartime medic and another chose village healer.

Meanwhile, “Experiences impact fiction” (p 100) is a core GM mechanic. A character’s experiences should lessen their need to roll in situations they are experienced it.

And 5e gives this same advice mainly in reference to what a character's class would make them good at. The advice is there... people just seem to overlook it often.

 

[Seramus]

when do i want my character to either die randomly or suddenly out of nowhere rebound almost totally... with equal chances of both.

Hard to say. I intentionally use dice-based gaming systems to interject randomness into my stories - I have an old background in freeform gaming where everything was either collaborative, or I decided everything that happened, and I really appreciate how the dice can take the story in new and unexpected directions. Even something as simple as a random encounter table lets me flex my improv skills and weave unplanned elements into the story. So I can see the appeal of letting Fate decide the outcome with Risk-it-All.

But that's just me. Even I don't like complete gonzo randomness. I'm not rolling randomly for everything.

 

[Imaro]

Let's look at the tip you're referring. I'll reprint it directly from the Core Rulebook, so we're all on the same page (20):



That tip doesn’t contradict the game’s ethos—it reflects it. It’s framed specifically for players unsure how to begin in a battle-focused campaign, and it still encourages balance (“combat and… something useful outside of combat”). The point is to align choices with the style of the campaign, not to steer every player toward optimization. That’s a flexible design principle, not a contradiction.

Daggerheart doesn’t pretend that combat doesn’t exist—it just doesn’t prioritize it above character growth, group storytelling, or narrative freedom. The rulebook consistently reinforces that your table decides what matters most, and the mechanics are there to support—not dictate—that focus.

The quoted passage on page 20 doesn’t prescribe an optimization strategy. It doesn’t say “this is how Experiences should be used.” It says: if you're unsure, consider the campaign tone, and it’s never a bad idea to include something that supports combat. That’s practical scaffolding for players who don’t yet have a strong narrative hook for their character—and even then, it advises balancing combat usefulness with something else. And in this case, it specifically references a battle-focused campaign as the context for that advice. Not because every campaign is battle-focused, or every character should be built this way. It’s the safe bet. It’s decent general advice for someone who’s still figuring things out. It’s not a cheat code or the secret to “playing it right.”

That’s especially clear with Experiences. These aren’t feats or skill trees—there’s no list to min-max from. They’re intentionally open-ended, giving players the space to define their character’s growth in their own terms. And because they cost Hope to use, they’re not passive bonuses. They don’t shape how players build their characters—they mark moments where the story itself is asserting weight. That makes them less about consistent advantage, and more about narrative punctuation.

My point to put it simply is that instead of it pointing you towards something about the character you are actually creating... it cites the type of campaign you're in and says pick something to make you optimal in it.

 

[BruceWright]

Advice is good... but without mechanical incentive to back it up it's not really going to be effective.

I guess I differ with you on the idea that if something isn't specifically mechanically rewarded it's irrelevant to the type of game that gets played at the table.

To me, TTRPGs are vibe engines. It's not chess where the rule mechanics are the sole dictators of the play state.

It'll never be chess, no matter how legalistically the rules are written.

It's a vibe engine. It creates vibes. Don't like the vibe? Play how you want at your table, with this system or a different one.

But this is a game with no "win state". Winning has and always will be "we had fun". And fun is different for everyone. If your idea of fun gravitates towards stories about non-optimal heroes, Daggerheart may have pull for you. If not, it's cool, please enjoy what you enjoy.

Myself, I LOVE a non-optimal hero.

I love Indiana Jones and his build of a desert and jungle-adventurer with a non-optimal fear of snakes. (woah what a stupid build!)

Were he a character in a Daggerheart adventure, I'd love him as is, and I wouldn't require he got a +5 bonus every time he ran from a snake, just to ensure that the snake fear was only non-optimal in the fiction but actually mechanically optimal.

Instead, the game encourages and supports roleplay-centric non-optimal builds in other ways.
You might think that unless something creates beep beep beep number on sheet go up then it doesn't exist. Or players will ignore it.

But I think you might be picturing a certain type of player, and not imagining that other types of players and other types of play exist and want to play like this.

"Advice is good... but without mechanical incentive to back it up it's not really going to be effective."

You would be surprised, I think, at my players.

 

[Imaro]

I guess I differ with you on the idea that if something isn't specifically mechanically rewarded it's irrelevant to the type of game that gets played at the table.

To me, TTRPGs are vibe engines. It's not chess where the rule mechanics are the sole dictators of the play state.

It'll never be chess, no matter how legalistically the rules are written.

It's a vibe engine. It creates vibes. Don't like the vibe? Play how you want at your table, with this system or a different one.

But this is a game with no "win state". Winning has and always will be "we had fun". And fun is different for everyone. If your idea of fun gravitates towards stories about non-optimal heroes, Daggerheart may have pull for you. If not, it's cool, please enjoy what you enjoy.

Myself, I LOVE a non-optimal hero.

I love Indiana Jones and his build of a desert and jungle-adventurer with a non-optimal fear of snakes. (woah what a stupid build!)

Were he a character in a Daggerheart adventure, I'd love him as is, and I wouldn't require he got a +5 bonus every time he ran from a snake, just to ensure that the snake fear was only non-optimal in the fiction but actually mechanically optimal.

Instead, the game encourages and supports roleplay-centric non-optimal builds in other ways.
You might think that unless something creates beep beep beep number on sheet go up then it doesn't exist. Or players will ignore it.

But I think you might be picturing a certain type of player, and not imagining that other types of players and other types of play exist and want to play like this.


You would be surprised, I think, at my players.

What you are responding too wasn't really about suboptimal heroes... it's about play loop and whether the game rewards players for participating in it. Being Sub-optimal or optimal in aspects of the game has no bearing on whether there are rules that incentivize you to participate in a game's intended play loop. Such as am I rewarded for tactically sound combat or am I rewarded for more cinematic combat. If one style is rewarded and another is punished or ignored the game supports the style that is rewarded.

 

[BruceWright]

What you are responding too wasn't really about suboptimal heroes... it's about play loop and whether the game rewards players for participating in it. Being Sub-optimal or optimal in aspects of the game has no bearing on whether there are rules that incentivize you to participate in a game's intended play loop. Such as am I rewarded for tactically sound combat or am I rewarded for more cinematic combat. If one style is rewarded and another is punished or ignored the game supports the style that is rewarded.

As a GM, I am more interested in if the system supports MY intended play loop. I care not how other tables play, and if the system is properly corralling them and keeping them to something intended by the designers.

What I highlighted are structural and content supports for the game I like to run. These tools, I find useful.

 

[Imaro]

As a GM, I am more interested in if the system supports MY intended play loop. I care not how other tables play, and if the system is properly corralling them and keeping them to something intended by the designers.

What I highlighted are structural and content supports for the game I like to run. These tools, I find useful.

Cool... In addition to the above I'm also interested in how others play the game, experience it and interpret it.. That's why I'm on a forum.

 

[BruceWright]

Cool... In addition to the above I'm also interested in how others play the game, experience it and interpret it.. That's why I'm on a forum.

Right but my perception is that you may be insisting that mechanics are the only determinative factor in how others play the game, and I'm pushing against that idea.