• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Daggerheart Review: The Duality of Robust Combat Mechanics and Freeform Narrative

daggerheart art.png


Daggerheart tries to simultaneously offer a robust set of combat tools driven by high fantasy while also encouraging a collaborative storytelling environment between the player and game master. Although it's too chunky of a game system to really appeal to narrative game enthusiasts, it does offer a unique enough system to stand out more than as just another game trying to out-D&D Dungeons & Dragons. The real question is whether the Critical Role effect will be enough to propel Daggerheart into a rarified space amongst D&D or if it will get lost in the shuffle similar to Darrington Press’s previous RPG Candela Obscura.

Daggerheart is a high-fantasy RPG influenced by the likes of D&D 4th Edition, FFG’s Genesys System, Blades in the Dark, and the Cypher System. It wears most of these influences proudly on its sleeves, calling out the various RPGs that influenced its mechanics in its opening pages. For veteran RPG players, a readthrough of Daggerheart will feel a bit like that one Leonardo DeCaprio meme, as many of the secondary systems in particular feel a bit like elements grafted from other game systems.

While this might sound like a criticism, it’s really not. Many DM have used pieces of various game systems to enhance their own games for decades. So, seeing a worldbuilding system influenced by The Quiet Year or DM interruptions guided by the Cypher System isn’t as much derivative as simply doing something that many of us have already been doing at our own tables. What I can say is that Spenser Starke, lead developer of Daggerheart, clearly has good taste in RPGs, as he’s distilled a lot of great parts of other RPGs and mixed them together for a game that will still feel fresh to a lot of the game’s intended audience.

daggerheart 2.jpg


At the heart of the Daggerheart system is the duality dice, a pair of differently-colored D12s. When making checks, players roll both D12s and add any relevant modifiers (which can be represented as tokens that are tossed alongside the dice). The two dice results are added together to determine success or failure, with additional narrative effects determined by which of the two dice (which are known as the Hope Die and the Fear Die) has the higher result. A roll with Hope results in a narrative benefit of some kind, even when the result is a failure. A roll with Fear results in a narrative setback of some kind, even if the roll is successful.

Hope and Fear also act as one of several kinds of resources players are expected to manage throughout the game. The Hope resource fuels several player abilities, including a new Hope Feature for each class that wasn’t present during playtesting. Players are also expected to track Stress, HP, Armor (which is both a type of equipment and a type of resource), gold, and equipment. Some classes also have additional meta-currency, which requires further tracking. The GM meanwhile uses Fear, which can only be generated by the players through their rolls, as a way to take extra moves or activate certain features. The result is a lot of resource management over the course of a game, in addition to whatever kind of storytelling tracking or mystery solving a GM may want to throw at their party.

Character creation, coincidentally, is a lot more in line with the newest version of D&D 5th Edition, with background, ancestry, class, subclass, and domain all coming together to create a character. All of the aforementioned character options have at least one feature that feeds into the character sheet. Daggerheart solves this immense modularity through the use of cards, which come with the game’s core rulebook in a nifty box and list various kinds of features.

The cards eventually play into the game design itself, with players having a limited hand of domain abilities that they can swap out as they reach higher levels. The cards aren’t technically necessary, as all the information from the cards can also be found in the core rulebook. However, the cards are a lot more handy than writing down all that information, and frankly, the way domains work mean that the cards are more of a necessity than a bonus.

daggerheart 3.jpeg


What will be interesting is how Daggerheart handles the eventual expansion of the game. Will new domain abilities or ancestries also get their own cards? And will they be included with the purchase of a physical book or left as a separate purchase? Given that the cards are one of the more unique aspects to Daggerheart, it will be interesting to see how Critical Role tackles this part of their game.

When playtesting the game last year, my players’ favorite part of the game was the way Daggerheart encouraged players to take an active part in worldbuilding. This starts from Session Zero when players are encouraged to name landmarks on a map (several pre-generated maps and location name suggestions are included in the book and are available to download) and continues through various story and idea prompts embedded into the adventures themselves. The game encourages the players to improvise upon the world, answering their own questions about what an NPC may look like or how the residents of a certain town behave. This in turn is supposed to feed story ideas to the GM to riff off of, building out a more off-the-cuff story that is built more off of vibes than meticulous planning.

At its heart, Daggerheart plays on two diametrically different game concepts. Its combat engine is a resource management system where players are encouraged to build broken character builds to live out overpowered fantasy fulfillment. However, the narrative system is built around a more freeform collaboration between players and GM, where the story grows without much impediment from rules. Much like its core dice mechanic, the duality of Daggerheart works well together, although I think this game will ultimately appeal to D&D players rather than those who enjoy lighter RPG fare.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

I’d have to say that the monsters are the weakest part of the game. I think that as soon as I get my new computer I’ll have to try homebrewing some.

This is where I'm in a wait and test mode. Because, at least on initial read, I'm pretty happy with the compactness of the stat block and it looks pretty easy to both put them into play and build combat encounters quickly. But I have to see them in action first.

Movement and size look pretty abstracted in Daggerheart, this is something I'll have to see in action. I noticed that size simply isn't a thing, no mention in the beast forms in the Druid, it's just implied. So I assume that that's a fiction first element, obviously a cat is cat sized, but how big are the various elementals?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maybe the idea is simply we do whatever we want. If we like flying vampires, they fly. They just don’t get a bonus to their difficulty while doing so like some flying creatures do.
That's the key, I think. Instead of loading in a bunch of stuff to ignore or rewrite, they kept it simple. Seems like a waste of space to include it considering a lot of that info would just have to change based on the world played in or the campaign frame used.
I’d have to say that the monsters are the weakest part of the game.
Hard disagree. It's a great split between the simplicity of an OSR monster stat block and having enough unique crunchy bits to keep them interesting.
I think that as soon as I get my new computer I’ll have to try homebrewing some.
Yeah. There's going to be a lot of that going around.
 

This is where I'm in a wait and test mode. Because, at least on initial read, I'm pretty happy with the compactness of the stat block and it looks pretty easy to both put them into play and build combat encounters quickly. But I have to see them in action first.
I gotta say I was surprised by the encounter-building math. That seems rather precise. I'd like to see a breakdown of the math behind all that. Not just the monsters but the PCs, too. Don't know why but that's always interesting to me.
Movement and size look pretty abstracted in Daggerheart, this is something I'll have to see in action. I noticed that size simply isn't a thing, no mention in the beast forms in the Druid, it's just implied. So I assume that that's a fiction first element, obviously a cat is cat sized, but how big are the various elementals?
For me it's a breath of fresh air. Not having to have everything perfectly nailed down is great because it saves wasted words and page count. As you say, a cat is cat sized. No need for that info taking up space. How big are elementals? As big or as little as either you want them to be or they want to be in the moment. It's a game more interested in the story than the physics.

Like JMS said years ago about Babylon 5 physics, "The ships go as fast as the plot demands."

How big are the elements? As big or as little as your table's story demands.
 

That's the key, I think. Instead of loading in a bunch of stuff to ignore or rewrite, they kept it simple. Seems like a waste of space to include it considering a lot of that info would just have to change based on the world played in or the campaign frame used.

I think people really aren't reading the pages I noted back there about how they expect you to make GM moves via NPCs, and seeing how Motives/Traits ("tags" / moves in other games) are how you make a memo to yourself to do things. And maybe they needed to explain this a little bit clearer?

The explicit special actions are there with math and balancing, anything that's more narrative in nature that you'd expect a creature like that to do you just Spotlight & make a Move that prompts a player response. The Dire Wight is a good example: they have an experience that's Throw(+3). None of their Features or Motives&Tactics explicitly tie into this; but they have Protect as a motive. Let's say they're with a Necromancer who raised them, and a sneaky little rogue has charged up to stab them and rolls a Success with Fear. I might spotlight the Wight and say something like "as your dagger sinks into the necromancer she cries out in pain, and this massive reeking undead creature turns towards you with a roar of indignation and reaches out with a meaty hand to toss you away - tell me how you try to avoid this and then make an Reaction roll vs 18 since I'm using their experience here."

If you want to adjust the math, there's blocks that are obviously tested to stay within the tier cost to look at. Eg: the Knight gets +2 Difficulty mounted, easy enough to add that to anybody else who's skilled at fighting from mount-back. Or you say "the vampire takes to the air, batwings sprouting from his back" and now he's flying and people on the ground just can't deal with that any more. It's not quite as fiction-first as like PBTA or FITD, but it's going there - eg: the Flickerfly flies, because that's what a fly does.
 

I think people really aren't reading the pages I noted back there about how they expect you to make GM moves via NPCs, and seeing how Motives/Traits ("tags" / moves in other games) are how you make a memo to yourself to do things. And maybe they needed to explain this a little bit clearer?
Yeah. The book's been out what...5 days. Most people haven't finished their first pass, much less dug deep on repeated readings.

There are some inconsistencies in the monsters and definitely places things could be explained better. Daggerheart falls into the typical RPG writing trap of assuming some things that need to be explained while over-explaining things that can be assumed.

Motivations/tactics as explicit moves comes to mind. If it's stated outright that those are mean to be GM moves, I missed it. Makes sense given the context. It should be explicitly stated because some of them are special abilities tucked into text people might skip over.
The explicit special actions are there with math and balancing, anything that's more narrative in nature that you'd expect a creature like that to do you just Spotlight & make a Move that prompts a player response. The Dire Wight is a good example: they have an experience that's Throw(+3). None of their Features or Motives&Tactics explicitly tie into this; but they have Protect as a motive. Let's say they're with a Necromancer who raised them, and a sneaky little rogue has charged up to stab them and rolls a Success with Fear. I might spotlight the Wight and say something like "as your dagger sinks into the necromancer she cries out in pain, and this massive reeking undead creature turns towards you with a roar of indignation and reaches out with a meaty hand to toss you away - tell me how you try to avoid this and then make an Reaction roll vs 18 since I'm using their experience here."

If you want to adjust the math, there's blocks that are obviously tested to stay within the tier cost to look at. Eg: the Knight gets +2 Difficulty mounted, easy enough to add that to anybody else who's skilled at fighting from mount-back. Or you say "the vampire takes to the air, batwings sprouting from his back" and now he's flying and people on the ground just can't deal with that any more. It's not quite as fiction-first as like PBTA or FITD, but it's going there - eg: the Flickerfly flies, because that's what a fly does.
Yeah, it does seem odd that you have the dis/advantage system right there and it's not used for more stuff. Dealing with flat bonuses seems silly when you have something that robust to use.
 

The worst part about Daggerheart being aimed at D&D players is that people are going to try and evaluate it on D&D metrics. Precise movement. Encounter math. Class balance. In a game that is 80% narrative, this stuff isn't especially important. Hell, it isn't especially important in D&D.
 

Yeah, it does seem odd that you have the dis/advantage system right there and it's not used for more stuff. Dealing with flat bonuses seems silly when you have something that robust to use.

I think they assume this is being adjudged on the fly as the fiction demands or invoked explicitly.

Edit: Yeah, they explicitly assume this is being adjudged on the fly as the fiction demands per page 160 - where they also make a note about not just flat upgrading Difficulty because the former lets fictional actions reflect in mechanics.
Motivations/tactics as explicit moves comes to mind. If it's stated outright that those are mean to be GM moves, I missed it. Makes sense given the context. It should be explicitly stated because some of them are special abilities tucked into text people might skip over.

It’s right there under the adversary block by block breakdown for Motives and Tactics. The example is the bandit that has throw smoke as a tactic and they note that means that they will obscure the battlefield and / or their escape route.
 

The worst part about Daggerheart being aimed at D&D players is that people are going to try and evaluate it on D&D metrics. Precise movement. Encounter math. Class balance. In a game that is 80% narrative, this stuff isn't especially important. Hell, it isn't especially important in D&D.

Ok, but they do actually have really good encounter building math inclusive of stuff besides just "add more or less monsters!" I think an expectation of well designed/mathed and balanced encounters is maybe the least narrativist and most 4e/PF2e esque thing about this game. When I run a PBTA, there's no such thing as a balanced encounter.
 

Argh! Do you have a link? I can’t find it on the Reddit and am stuck on mobile at the moment so I can only take screenshots.

But thank you for posting that! Even with screenshots, it’ll be very useful.
It's not a screenshot, it's just being turned into a live display by the forum - I just entered the link.

But the link directly is here.
 

I think they assume this is being adjudged on the fly as the fiction demands or invoked explicitly.

Edit: Yeah, they explicitly assume this is being adjudged on the fly as the fiction demands per page 160 - where they also make a note about not just flat upgrading Difficulty because the former lets fictional actions reflect in mechanics.
Shrug. As I said, most people haven't even had time to read the full book once. I certainly don't have it memorized yet.
It’s right there under the adversary block by block breakdown for Motives and Tactics. The example is the bandit that has throw smoke as a tactic and they note that means that they will obscure the battlefield and / or their escape route.
That's my point. It's not explicitly stated anywhere (that I've found) that these are possible GM moves. It's implied in the stat block breakdown. So if you don't read that one paragraph, you're out of luck.

As I mentioned, it's kinda weird that some stuff is repeatedly explained while other stuff is almost hidden and tucked away so that if you don't read every word you might be lost.

Oh. I think I spotted it. The GM stuff is just said once wherever it comes up. The player stuff is repeated in different ways in different places.
 

Into the Woods

Related Articles

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top