Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[Morrus]

The original paladins in history/mythology were Christian holy knights who fought Muslim invaders during the Crusade era. So calling them "jihadist" is not that far from a simple statement of fact. There's room for disagreement, but it's hardly trolling.

Clerics are trickier because there's a lot of Van Helsing in that mix. But ultimately the concept of a holy warrior who beats evil with a hammer is pretty inextricable from the Crusades. Admittedly, clerics and paladins hit different in a world where objective evil like trolls and undead exist, instead of "evil" just meaning "humans who have a different religion". But still.

Steering this back on topic... does the Seraph class wash away those associations? Seems to me that it does. It nicely embodies the paladin playstyle without any of the baggage of the traditional paladin. It's also just more fun that they started from scratch. The Divine Wielder's ability to fling their weapon like Thor is unlike anything in D&D lore, and more power to it.

Keep the real world religion talk out of it please.

 

[zakael19]

Do you know how Ableist that comes across? Most of the people I game with have trouble enough reading the GM, let alone the rest of the table. Half my current players are on the spectrum. My kids are on the spectrum, so am I. Reading the table isn't easy for me; it's the most tiring part of playing and GMing.

If guns don't happen, you're not actually playing in Dresden's universe. Two of the novels have pivotal battles between factions using firearms.

This is one of the things I really like about the narrativist games that DH has taken a lot of cues from, especially in its Agenda and Best Practices. I play exclusively online without ever looking at my player's faces; and I have multiple AuHD players as well. Relying on things like "creating a meta conversation," "tell them what they would know," "cultivating a curious table (especially the "foster an environment of creative inquiry")," and "gain your player's trust (particularly the checking in with your players when you're unsure what they intend)" all help me move things from tone & voice alone to explicitly stated moments.

Eg: I communicate body language and expressions with words and then add the emotion behind it, I'm always stepping into the meta conversation to check-in; ensure we're all on the same page goal wise; see if anybody wants to set up a scene; etc. I'm always asking questions about character's internal lives - feelings, emotional resonances, all that good stuff, and encouraging others to do the same.

 

[Reynard]

Daggerheart doesn't agree, although again it's designed to collapse gracefully to more "conventional" TTRPG play. This is a game that intends you as GM to directly spotlight certain players and prompt cinematic action:




Lets not relitigate "agency" the way that 10k+ thread over there has, but spotlighting a character does not in anyway diminish that within the confines of the game here - you are giving them a call to action, or thoughtful question, and asking "what do you do?"

Neither of your quotes are about what to do in combat when one player is being a mouse.

 

[zakael19]

Neither of your quotes are about what to do in combat when one player is being a mouse.

Huh?

As the GM, you can help ensure that the story’s focus rotates between the PCs, so each player has ample time in the spotlight...You can also engage a quieter player by directly inviting action from their character, rather than broadly asking the whole party what they’re doing next.

You can also Spotlight an Adversary or Reveal an Unexpected Danger or Capture Someone to make a move against a player who's hiding out, and make it clear that the lack of action is why, by acting fiction first: "Charis, as you're dithering around the edges of the melee, you feel the kiss of a knife across your neck and a soft voice whispering 'come along quietly now,' go ahead and note that you're restrained, what do you do?"

 

[Reynard]

Huh?


You can also Spotlight an Adversary or Reveal an Unexpected Danger or Capture Someone to make a move against a player who's hiding out, and make it clear that the lack of action is why, by acting fiction first: "Charis, as you're dithering around the edges of the melee, you feel the kiss of a knife across your neck and a soft voice whispering 'come along quietly now,' go ahead and note that you're restrained, what do you do?"

Again, none of that is about the quiet player in combat. The quote you pulled is about play broadly.

 

[zakael19]

Again, none of that is about the quiet player in combat. The quote you pulled is about play broadly.

THERE'S NO INITIATIVE. All play is play. Spotlighting an adversary happens in Combat, or in Social scenes, or in Exploration, etc. The GM Best Practices apply to all play at all times, as do GM Actions.

 

[Reynard]

THERE'S NO INITIATIVE. All play is play. Spotlighting an adversary happens in Combat, or in Social scenes, or in Exploration, etc. The GM Best Practices apply to all play at all times, as do GM Actions.

Yes. But the issue here is specifically the problem of how no intitiative combat causes problems that "general play" does not.

To restate my point: I think that the players, individually and as a group, are generally responsible for their own fun and engagement and the GM should only step in to "save" a player who is quiet, or "admonish" one who is hogging the spotlight, if it gets out of hand. This is NOT related to the Gm making regular moves or acting with fear or any of that. this is an issue of player responsibility and agency.

 

[Reynard]

Just to shift gears into the positive:

I think Daggerheart as a "bridge" game between traditional D&D style and fiction-first PbtA style will ultimately have a positive impact on the culture of the hobby in general. DH isn't the first game to do this, of course, but it is a very high profile one, and I imagine a lot of "D&D folks" are going to end up embracing things like narrative mechanics and metacurrency. And as such, I think we will see some "trad RPG" evolution happening -- both by folks looking to capitalize, as well as by players turned designers who embraced DH.

 

[zakael19]

Yes. But the issue here is specifically the problem of how no intitiative combat causes problems that "general play" does not.

To restate my point: I think that the players, individually and as a group, are generally responsible for their own fun and engagement and the GM should only step in to "save" a player who is quiet, or "admonish" one who is hogging the spotlight, if it gets out of hand. This is NOT related to the Gm making regular moves or acting with fear or any of that. this is an issue of player responsibility and agency.

A) Daggerheart fundamentally disagrees with your point. It expects the GM to actively pull the players, all of them, into the game. This shows up under pretty much all of the Best Practices in various ways, see especially the amplification under Gain your Player's Trust, Cut to the Action, and Help the Players Use the Game. This also shows up in the discussion of the Principles of Collaborate at all times, Especially During Conflict, Ask Questions and Incorporate the Answers, and Fill the world with Life, Wonder, and Danger.

B) I agree that no-initiative combat scenes pose challenges for those unfamiliar, the good thing is that if you just keep your moves in mind and remind the players of their own Principles things tend to work out.

Actively reminding the players of their Principles can be needed sometimes.

 

[Reynard]

A) Daggerheart fundamentally disagrees with your point. It expects the GM to actively pull the players, all of them, into the game. This shows up under pretty much all of the Best Practices in various ways, see especially the amplification under Gain your Player's Trust, Cut to the Action, and Help the Players Use the Game. This also shows up in the discussion of the Principles of Collaborate at all times, Especially During Conflict, Ask Questions and Incorporate the Answers, and Fill the world with Life, Wonder, and Danger.

I think you are interpreting this advice differently than I am, and then accusing me of doing it wrong.

B) I agree that no-initiative combat scenes pose challenges for those unfamiliar, the good thing is that if you just keep your moves in mind and remind the players of their own Principles things tend to work out.

Actively reminding the players of their Principles can be needed sometimes.

For clarity, I am not arguing against "reminding players of their own principles." i am arguing against the GM taking an active hand in telling the players who should go next.