Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[Imaro]

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.

How does that incentivize you to choose permanent death at a narratively appropriate time? That's an incentive to choose the move... not an incentive to perpetuate the recommended playstyle or play loop of the game.

 

[dbm]

For the final time: that is a player’s choice to make. The system supports this by actually making it a choice available to them.

 

[Imaro]

Some players may look for direct mechanical rewards for narrative choices, but that’s not the kind of contract Daggerheart is making.

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.

 

[Imaro]

For the final time: that is a player’s choice to make. The system supports this by actually making it a choice available to them.

For the final time that doesn't answer my question.

 

[Imaro]

I think Daggerheart is a really good game and I am currently running a campaign for it. But fans of DH claiming they don't get why people don't necessarily play in what they consider to be the spirit of a narrative game, IMO, are ignoring the tension and dichotomy that some of DH's examples, advice and mechanics have going on.

 

[zakael19]

I think Daggerheart is a really good game and I am currently running a campaign for it. But fans of DH claiming they don't get why people don't necessarily play in what they consider to be the spirit of a narrative game, IMO, are ignoring the tension and dichotomy that some of DH's examples, advice and mechanics have going on.

Have you considered that what we see and understand and onboard from the structure and guidance of the game and you don’t may instead be a difference in perspective?

Like, if we’re saying “we’re simply not experiencing these issues” we’re not gaslighting you about your “concerns” but just not encountering the issue in play; or structuring the conversation in accordance with the GM guidelines in a way that works great at the table.

 

[Imaro]

Have you considered that what we see and understand and onboard from the structure and guidance of the game and you don’t may instead be a difference in perspective?

Yes I'm not saying anyone is wrong, and I'm not the one insinuating if you read the entire book you can only come to one interpretation... I preface alot with IMO...

Like, if we’re saying “we’re simply not experiencing these issues” we’re not gaslighting you about your “concerns” but just not encountering the issue in play; or structuring the conversation in accordance with the GM guidelines in a way that works great at the table.

That's not what some are saying though. If you're not experiencing that cool, again never said you had too or my way was THE way to interpret the book... but others in the thread (and or reddit) have said they are having some of these problems and I was offering why I think that might be.

 

[Seramus]

How does that incentivize you to choose permanent death at a narratively appropriate time? That's an incentive to choose the move... not an incentive to perpetuate the recommended playstyle or play loop of the game.

I think the system intentionally avoids giving a mechanical incentive to choose permanent death. There are some minor influences, like ensuring a critical success if the player thinks it might save other characters from going down, or having the chance to stay in the fight if they Risk-it-All. But as a general statement, it seems to intentionally refrain from giving a mechanical incentive for something as important and personal as player death.

Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen. I'm too new to the game to make a judgement yet.

 

[Imaro]

I think the system intentionally avoids giving a mechanical incentive to choose permanent death. There are some minor influences, like ensuring a critical success if the player thinks it might save other characters from going down, or having the chance to stay in the fight if they Risk-it-All. But as a general statement, it seems to intentionally refrain from giving a mechanical incentive for something as important and personal as player death

Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen. I'm too new to the game to make a judgement yet.

To me the weird or awkward one is "Risk It All"... and maybe that's because I don't think my players will ever use it. I mean from a mechanical perspective I get it, it caters to randomness and risk... but in a game that is a narrative based game and one where it gives you the option to decide your story ending or continuation I'm trying hard to understand what it actually offers when playing Daggerheart in the playstyle it presents in good faith... when do i want my character to either die randomly or suddenly out of nowhere rebound almost totally... with equal chances of both. I think part of me would find it more interesting if this was a sacrifice X to produce Y and maybe lessen the level of bounce back (it would simulate the action hero who pulls himself up battered and beaten for another shot), while dying still stays a player decision or the result of too many scars (since this can be planned for and approached almost like a doom upon the hero. I'm thinking about houseruling it for my next DH campaign.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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 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.