No. That’s why I called it advice, not a rule. I have read the whole thing at least twice now, but thanks for assuming. As advice goes, it’s pretty bad. As you note at length it contradicts so much of the other advice given in the book.
That's not the way I'm reading it. You called the rules terrible earlier, and as guidelines, they're not. They're really useful as a starting point for the GM for different kinds of encounters. Are there places to go after that? I sure think so. I get the impression you're saying "spend Fear to make all the encounters as rough as possible," which is sort of the polar opposite advice. And, I don't agree with that. I'd say if the GM spent all their Fear to wreck the party in every encounter, a couple of things would happen. One, the party would be in a lot worse shape when they reach the "boss" encounter, and two, the GM wouldn't have the Fear to make that encounter, which the session was building up to, really memorable.
I've run the Quick Start and it was decent as these sorts of things are. There is also a supplement about the location for the adventure which lets you expand on it a bit. I have heard third parties are making adventures, but haven't seen any yet. I am sure someone will come along with more information shortly.
I'm not sure yet. There is an adventure that I think was for the playtest that is similar.
www.daggerheart.com
For something like a one-shot or a convention game, absolutely. For a campaign, I would say no. Daggerheart strikes me as a PCs front-and-center as protagonists style of game. In my view that means prepping situations that directly involve the PCs' goals and motivations rather than canned adventures. If you wanted to run a canned adventure, I'd suggest finding PC goals and motivations and pointing those towards the canned adventure. Like one PC wants to find their long-lost brother so plant rumors that the brother went to a relevant location near the start of the adventure. Just don't string the players along and actually pay off the goal and motivation.
Yeah. I feel you. It's definitely a shift in playstyle. To be fair, it's just my opinion. But it does strike me as needing something like the attitude presented in the Game Master's Handbook of Proactive Roleplaying.
I think you can run it with the mentality you're comfortable with, and make use of some of the narrative elements when you feel comfortable with them. I've played a bunch of OSR style games, even though it's not my preferred playstyle, and the central element I get from them as you present a situation and the story is what comes out of the choices the players make. So in effect there's no intent of a predefined story.
