Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9705923" data-attributes="member: 6667921">I’m still working my way through the Core Rulebook, and honestly, I’m having a great time with it. But reading through this thread, I keep finding myself wondering… are we all actually reading the same book?Not trying to be flippant—I genuinely mean that. Because a lot of the issues being raised don’t seem to come from the rules as written, but from expectations carried over from other systems. Things like action economy, resource balance, or mechanical symmetry just aren’t how Daggerheart operates.What makes Daggerheart work isn’t a single mechanic—it’s the way the mechanics align with the intended rhythm of play. The game has structure, but not in the traditional sense of fixed cycles and codified systems. Instead, it’s procedural. Moment to moment, each action shapes the next. The game moves forward not in turns, but in momentum.In Daggerheart, dice aren’t for pausing the narrative to check for success—they’re there to fuel drama, to quicken the pace, to make the next beat of the story inevitable. Hope and Fear aren’t just jabs for players and GMs to take swipes at each other. They’re not “who wins this round.” What they really do—what’s so easy to miss if you’re reading them like tactical advantages—is establish rhythm. In a game without structured turns or fixed initiative, this is the mechanism that gives shape to the flow of play. It tells you when the story should pivot, when tension should spike, when the GM is allowed to lean forward. Not because the players did poorly, but because the narrative demands it. It’s not punishment—it’s pacing. It’s how Daggerheart mimics the rhythm of a great novel or film: pressure building, release earned, momentum shifting with each choice. Fear doesn’t say “you failed.” It says “the story just turned.”Importantly, Daggerheart acknowledges something most games leave implied: that rules alone can’t deliver the experience. Players and GMs must show up in good faith, with shared intent. The game says this out loud. It’s the first time I’ve seen a system declare that cooperation and buy-in aren’t nice-to-haves—they’re part of the machinery. Without them, the engine stalls.This ties into something deeper: the system trusts its participants. The rhythm is the structure. If you follow it, improvise with it, or break it deliberately, the game still holds. That makes it viable for a wide range of playstyles—from tightly planned sessions to freeform, character-driven storytelling.If Daggerheart has an uphill battle, it’s not against other systems—it’s against entrenched expectations. For many players, D&D (and so many other games like it) is not just the most familiar game; it’s the only frame of reference. That’s where friction will arise.D&D teaches a particular pattern: success is optimal, failure is waste. Rolls are asks for permission. Players calculate odds, deploy the most qualified character, and expect a binary outcome—pass or fail, win or lose. The game rewards this mindset. It treats narrative as something that emerges around the mechanics, not through them.Daggerheart challenges that. Here, failure has shape. Risk has weight. Outcomes invite reaction, not just resolution. The Hope/Fear axis doesn’t just complicate success—it reframes it. That’s going to frustrate players who are used to maximizing efficiency or scripting outcomes in advance. The system isn’t built for control. It’s built for contribution.Some will see this as a limitation, or even a punishment. They’ll say the system discourages creativity because it doesn’t let them act without consequence. But that’s a misread. The system requires creativity—just not the kind rooted in optimization. It asks players to invest in uncertainty. To allow their characters to falter, stumble, grow.So maybe the challenge isn’t in how the system works, but in how hard it is to let go of how we expect systems should work based on other games we played before.This isn't the same game anymore.</blockquote>

Verification