Daggerheart Post-Mortem

[Tigris]

Intuition is really just a sum total of expectations gained from experience. Anything that diverge from prior experience will be unintuitive.

Thats why good gamedesigners build up upon preknowledge and expectations people have.


Also when things have an inner logic there are a lot easier to remember then if they dont, which was proven time and time again. There is no inner logic behind why different monster types cost different point values, nor why the encounter building formulat is 3X +2.


We also know that things which take less space are easier to remember, and "1 level x enemy per level x player" is a lot easier to remember then "ok these 8 enemy types have the following point values and we need 3X +2 points".

 

[djotaku]

I'm the opposite, the Cosmere books are amazing, but I'm not too big on the rpg.

I did back it, in fact. And I'm being literal, I don't hate it, but there are at least 6-7 other RPGs I'm more excited about. Maybe I'll get around to trying it some day.

That makes sense. I don't think it's amazing or worth evangelizing you to get to it sooner. I'm having fun running it for a group of Cosmere experts (way more so than me) because they are getting so much joy out of playing with Sanderson's toys. The system is such an interesting synthesis of everything that's happening in TTRPGs right now:

• 3 action economy from Pathfinder 2e
• social mode and cinematic mode that seem to borrow from Paizo's victory points system (there may be an older ancestor that also did this, but I've only been in the TTRPG space for ~5 years)

these next 2 tie it into the current thread about Daggerheart:

• Opportunities /Complications die - similar to DH's hope/fear
• initiative-less combat - similar to DH

And the thing that I love as a GM and that my players appreciate:
- Most combat is over in 3-5 rounds - unlike D&D or Paizo games, there's no hours-long fights. In fact, if my players and I had a better grasp of the Radiant powers, most fights would probably be over in 10 minutes or less. What makes things push more from the 15-30 minute or more is my players wanting to do Radiant shenanigans and me trying to see if the rules allow it so that the fights don't all become broken, nothing-burgers.

But that said, I'm not SO into it that I'd abandon 5e and 5e forks like ToV or my burgeoning curiousity for Paizo TTRPGs. And I did have one player leave the table saying it was still too close ot the d20 games he didn't enjoy. I think he's running FATE-based games? I forgot which system he was using.

 

[Umbran]

Thats why good gamedesigners build up upon preknowledge and expectations people have.

However, innovation typically requires leaving the realm of the user's experience. You don't get new design by sticking with what folks already know and understand.

There is no inner logic behind why different monster types cost different point values, nor why the encounter building formulat is 3X +2.

I will accept that they didn't explain the logic to you in a way you understood..

But unless you asked and they answered, "oh, there is no logic to it, it's just stuff we threw down for page count," I have to take that assertion with a grain of salt.

We also know that things which take less space are easier to remember, and "1 level x enemy per level x player" is a lot easier to remember then "ok these 8 enemy types have the following point values and we need 3X +2 points".

Yes, but being easy to remember doesn't mean it works.

My intuition tells me that synergies make for complicated, non-linear power growth as you add numbers and diversity of types.

 

[Agamon]

That makes sense. I don't think it's amazing or worth evangelizing you to get to it sooner. I'm having fun running it for a group of Cosmere experts (way more so than me) because they are getting so much joy out of playing with Sanderson's toys. The system is such an interesting synthesis of everything that's happening in TTRPGs right now:

• 3 action economy from Pathfinder 2e
• social mode and cinematic mode that seem to borrow from Paizo's victory points system (there may be an older ancestor that also did this, but I've only been in the TTRPG space for ~5 years)

these next 2 tie it into the current thread about Daggerheart:

• Opportunities /Complications die - similar to DH's hope/fear
• initiative-less combat - similar to DH

And the thing that I love as a GM and that my players appreciate:
- Most combat is over in 3-5 rounds - unlike D&D or Paizo games, there's no hours-long fights. In fact, if my players and I had a better grasp of the Radiant powers, most fights would probably be over in 10 minutes or less. What makes things push more from the 15-30 minute or more is my players wanting to do Radiant shenanigans and me trying to see if the rules allow it so that the fights don't all become broken, nothing-burgers.

But that said, I'm not SO into it that I'd abandon 5e and 5e forks like ToV or my burgeoning curiousity for Paizo TTRPGs. And I did have one player leave the table saying it was still too close ot the d20 games he didn't enjoy. I think he's running FATE-based games? I forgot which system he was using.

Part of my problem is that I'm one of the few readers amongst my rpg friends, and the only Sanderson fan. So telling them, "Look, Cosmere!" would just get confused shrugs.

Also, when I looked over PF2, it was definitely not for me. This might work if it doesn't have too many of its systems.

 

[Celebrim]

@Retreater : I confess I have barely looked at Daggerheart. Your experience may get me to take a second look.

More importantly, I am so happy to hear you reporting a pleasant experience as a GM. That is awesome.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Glad to hear things worked out for you, Retreater. I know I've sometimes been a little crisp with you when you seemed to be trying to offload problems on the system you were using, but I really do know how frustrating not being able to get things so you and your players were both having a good time; I finally had to disconnect from one group because I concluded we just couldn't get on the same page. I can't help but feel happy for you that you've finally found your way out of the thicket.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Gotcha.
I agree that the system has some nuance, but I don't think I would couch that as "less freedom." Given how thoroughly the game was tested, I can only assume that the value in the encounter emerged out of play rather than being arbitrary. And lots of the types do in fact share "point values" so you can switch stuff.

I will say this about encounter design, though: you need to be careful about spending points on too many low value adversaries, because it strains the fear pool when trying to use them.

And honestly, other games can sometimes be overly blase about how interchangeable types of the same "value" are. I just got done with a 13th Age 1e campaign, and let me say for the record that piling up a bunch of spoilers or wreckers is not a good idea, even if they're ranked the same as a caster or troop. The design discussion outright tells you that. But that's true of most games with an encounter building system and purpose-built opponents.

 

[Blue]

Thats why good gamedesigners build up upon preknowledge and expectations people have.

That's a blanket statement that is at most true to a degree. If a new system is just retreading existing mechanics what's the draw to move from a system you already know? For a new RPG to justify itself as not just a semi-clone it must break out and try something new.

Not saying there isn't a place for semi-clones, like OSR. But unless you are specifically trying to step into that type of niche, good game design must explore new avenues to have a draw from what came before. And new ways of doing things by definition aren't expected.

 

[Blue]

I just got done with a 13th Age 1e campaign, and let me say for the record that piling up a bunch of spoilers or wreckers is not a good idea, even if they're ranked the same as a caster or troop. The design discussion outright tells you that. But that's true of most games with an encounter building system and purpose-built opponents.

I'll keep this brief as it's a tangent to the main conversation. In a 13th Age 1e campaign I ran, I messed up encounter building once because I forgot that the foes were all large. And it was in challenging terrain already, flying foes split between the deck and "air bag" (floating air whale) of a skyship as they were exploring the Overworld.

Ooops!

The party managed it, though the rogue who went off the side of the air whale and was plummeting to his death was saved by the dwarfforged on the deck firing a barbed harpoon w/ chain into him. That was a tough fight. I love that they give you rules for making a fair fight, and then tell you to make it unfair in memorable ways.

 

[Tigris]

That's a blanket statement that is at most true to a degree. If a new system is just retreading existing mechanics what's the draw to move from a system you already know? For a new RPG to justify itself as not just a semi-clone it must break out and try something new.

Not saying there isn't a place for semi-clones, like OSR. But unless you are specifically trying to step into that type of niche, good game design must explore new avenues to have a draw from what came before. And new ways of doing things by definition aren't expected.

Boardgames has a lot more innovation than RPGs in general and way way broader set of mechanics. And gamedesigners in boardgames manages to do that even when coming up with completely new mechanics, so this does not mean one needs to do clones.


Of course, there is also more money and thus more time for better gamedesigne in average in boardgames, ans making things more smooth and simpler is hard.



RPG players and designers just often overestimate "how different" their mechanics are while in the end its still mostly just dice resolution.