Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[zakael19]

1. Use Reaction Rolls and Group Rolls. These use player resources, including Hope, but don’t generate Hope or Fear.

Group rolls gen Hope/Fear on the actual Action Roll.

I also find that prompting “does anybody want to help?” winds up in a non-zero amount of Hope expenditure; especially when all Action rolls have compelling stakes.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The problem with tier difficulties is that it means the PCs never actually get any better at anything.

Like @zakael19 said, the book itself takes both positions, so either reading is correct. Definitely for me, outside of combat, I tend towards objective difficulties. I feel that it makes it easier for players to assess what will work and what won’t if « this would probably be pretty tough in real life, so the Keeper is likely to set a Diff around 20 » is internalized.

 

[zakael19]

I am not sure what this discussion has to do with 4E, or why it seems to be a proble.

4e and PF2 scale difficulties by level, DH scales difficulties on environments and adversaries by Tier (and your bonuses are somewhat constrained by tier). Adjudicating all rolls off a flat rate by tier (or a triad like I proposed for easy/normal/hard) allows you to do what those games do - scale the fictional scope of what people are trying.

Again, the same way as social adversaries / environments / etc all scale by tier to represent how a T3’s challenges and goals are different in scale and scope then a T1. I’ve got a lot of experience with running games in that construct and it feels good and consistent for me and the players.

 

[zakael19]

Like @zakael19 said, the book itself takes both positions, so either reading is correct. Definitely for me, outside of combat, I tend towards objective difficulties. I feel that it makes it easier for players to assess what will work and what won’t if « this would probably be pretty tough in real life, so the Keeper is likely to set a Diff around 20 » is internalized.

I just say “ok, the base difficulty for all checks at this tier is 14, but I’ll apply disadv if your approach is less effective.”

I try and convey stakes on a roll the way I would in Blades as well.

But yeah I guess I’m arguing preference and that either take works with a different spin on adjudication.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Group rolls gen Hope/Fear on the actual Action Roll.

Yes, so 4 rolls that generate 1 Hope/Fear rather than 4 rolls that generate 4 Hope/Fear. And players may expend resources of their Reaction rolls in order to pass.

I also find that prompting “does anybody want to help?” winds up in a non-zero amount of Hope expenditure; especially when all Action rolls have compelling stakes.

True, though outside of new players I tend not to adopt that level of hand-holding.

 

[Reynard]

4e and PF2 scale difficulties by level, DH scales difficulties on environments and adversaries by Tier (and your bonuses are somewhat constrained by tier). Adjudicating all rolls off a flat rate by tier (or a triad like I proposed for easy/normal/hard) allows you to do what those games do - scale the fictional scope of what people are trying.

Again, the same way as social adversaries / environments / etc all scale by tier to represent how a T3’s challenges and goals are different in scale and scope then a T1. I’ve got a lot of experience with running games in that construct and it feels good and consistent for me and the players.

Right, but Tier 1 PCs can still attempt Tier 3 challenges (even though those challenges are much harder). That is the way it should be. I was arguing against the idea that Hard (for example) might be DC 15 at tier 1, DC 18 at tier 2, etc... I saw that sort of thing recently in the Marvel Multiverse RPG and I do not like it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I just say “ok, the base difficulty for all checks at this tier is 14, but I’ll apply disadv if your approach is less effective.”

For me personally, this approach would restrict the toolset that DH gives me too much.

For example, say the Tier 2 party wants to recruit a criminal to break into the lord’s manor, and their prior reconnaissance has determined that certain specific valuables are held there, which they let slip to their contact.

I would set the difficulty at 10, then the Slyborne Wizard would get further advantage on the roll because he is negotiating with a criminal.
The alternative would be to set the difficulty at 14 for the tier, adding advantage because appealing to a criminal’s greed is effective, but the party would lose the benefit of the Wizard’s Slyborne feature.

Moreover, without the Wizard’s Slyborne feature, maybe to party decides the Ridgeborne Bard should make the roll, despite the fact that it is more narratively satisfying for the Slyborne Wizard to do so.

 

[zakael19]

Yes, so 4 rolls that generate 1 Hope/Fear rather than 4 rolls that generate 4 Hope/Fear. And players may expend resources of their Reaction rolls in order to pass.

Sure, yeah, when everybody is tackling a challenge together. It's a great way to Montage stuff with a Leader or similar, and let some "failures" play out in the fiction without materially affecting things more than that -1.

True, though outside of new players I tend not to adopt that level of hand-holding.

Well, I mostly play online so tossing it out there gives the space for people to speak before the player rolls dice. "Ok, you can do X but on a failure Y; does anybody want to jump in and help them?" is just managing the conversational flow.

Right, but Tier 1 PCs can still attempt Tier 3 challenges (even though those challenges are much harder). That is the way it should be. I was arguing against the idea that Hard (for example) might be DC 15 at tier 1, DC 18 at tier 2, etc... I saw that sort of thing recently in the Marvel Multiverse RPG and I do not like it.

To be clear, I'm coming from a background where I hate setting difficulties; much prefer objective system-set things at all times where the players just roll and know their outcome (eg: 2d6 with 6-/7-9/10+); and want to focus entirely on narrating the challenge & stakes & outcomes.

From that perspective, I like just determining what I want to be the challenge for a Tier and going. The players know what they're rolling against unless I bring an adversary or similar in, we discuss risk/reward for the roll, and continue.

 

[zakael19]

For me personally, this approach would restrict the toolset that DH gives me too much.

For example, say the Tier 2 party wants to recruit a criminal to break into the lord’s manor, and their prior reconnaissance has determined that certain specific valuables are held there, which they let slip to their contact.

I would set the difficulty at 10, then the Slyborne Wizard would get further advantage on the roll because he is negotiating with a criminal.
The alternative would be to set the difficulty at 14 for the tier, adding advantage because appealing to a criminal’s greed is effective, but the party would lose the benefit of the Wizard’s Slyborne feature.

Moreover, without the Wizard’s Slyborne feature, maybe to party decides the Ridgeborne Bard should make the roll, despite the fact that it is more narratively satisfying for the Slyborne Wizard to do so.

I handle all that on the Effect side. "Sure, because you're XYZ you can just do that / get adv / etc."

Idk, I guess my game-running background is just different so this is all natural to me and flows really well for my players in turn.