• 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

Shadowrun Anarchy has a "The Players get to change and add to the story" element. My group tried it and I frickin' hated it. It came down to either using the ability to make the Run easier or for them to try to top each other and/or vs me the GM trying to stay one step ahead.

Like the Run was: Extract an employee from one Corp and deliver to another. They used their game changing ability to have the Emp walk out of the Corp to get coffee. I used mine to have him with a body guard. They used theirs that a punk occupies the guard while they grabbed him. I had the punks gang pop up and start a fire fight. The had the cops arrive. Etc Etc Etc while it may sound interesting it was just time spend on one upping each other.
I mean, I dunno dude, it kind of sounds like the problem wasn't at all the rules there. It kind of sounds, from what you're describing, that you had an attitude where you couldn't stand things to get even slightly easier for the players, to even slightly deviate from your prepared scenario and expectation, so any time they did change the story, instead of rolling with it, you immediately tried to screw them over. It doesn't sound like you were "trying to stay ahead", it sounds from your own story like you were trying to just immediately make things harder.

And I think you might want to consider why that was your reaction. Because it's not necessarily the natural reaction, or one most DMs would have.

But I can only go on what you're telling us here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I mean, I dunno dude, it kind of sounds like the problem wasn't at all the rules there. It kind of sounds, from what you're describing, that you had an attitude where you couldn't stand things to get even slightly easier for the players, to even slightly deviate from your prepared scenario and expectation, so any time they did change the story, instead of rolling with it, you immediately tried to screw them over. It doesn't sound like you were "trying to stay ahead", it sounds from your own story like you were trying to just immediately make things harder.

And I think you might want to consider why that was your reaction. Because it's not necessarily the natural reaction, or one most DMs would have.

But I can only go on what you're telling us here.
Because the game should be fun and challenging. Being able to just have the target trip and fall into your get-away van isn't exciting or fun and made the Run a 5 minute aside instead of an adventure.

I can see using the ability to say, find the keycard to get past the locked door but to completely circumvent the Run is not fun for anyone.

And to be fair, they have a limited amount they can do this. And whenever they do it I get the ability to do it as well. So there is supposed to be a balancing of it. Sure they have the guy walk out of the building but then I can have him with a Guard. Or save the chit for something later.
 

Because the game should be fun and challenging. Being able to just have the target trip and fall into your get-away van isn't exciting or fun and made the Run a 5 minute aside instead of an adventure.

I can see using the ability to say, find the keycard to get past the locked door but to completely circumvent the Run is not fun for anyone.

And to be fair, they have a limited amount they can do this. And whenever they do it I get the ability to do it as well. So there is supposed to be a balancing of it. Sure they have the guy walk out of the building but then I can have him with a Guard. Or save the chit for something later.
Emphasis mine.

I think that is the better way to go in a situation and system like this. Fine, the target goes out for copy and the party grabs him. But when they are halfway to the delivery point, he starts to go into cardiac and his DocWagon Platinum activates. Now the PCs have to deal with a highly motivated and well armed "ambulance service."

Complications along the way are more fun and emulate f-up heists much better.
 

And to be fair, they have a limited amount they can do this. And whenever they do it I get the ability to do it as well. So there is supposed to be a balancing of it. Sure they have the guy walk out of the building but then I can have him with a Guard. Or save the chit for something later.
Okay, but that's exactly the problem.

Instead of you saying "Okay, they can have this one, I'll get them later!", and saving your chit to make things exciting later (like, say, by having a corporate attack drone wing come after them when they were getting away with the guy, or there be a major pile-up on the escape route they wanted to use, or having him have some kind of medical episode so they need to get him to a hospital or serious street doc urgently or w/e) by your description, every time they did something, you immediately decided to try and mess with them in a very direct way, to just straightforwardly try and negate the (frankly minor) advantage they'd gained.

That's what's caused the situation you're describing. It didn't have to tedious one-upmanship, but you ensured it was. At any point you could have not one-upped them, not tried to totally invalidate their change, and saved your chit to do something cooler later.

You can't blame the game for decisions you made. It's someone playing a Wizard in D&D saying "I blew all my spells in the first combat or two and then I couldn't do anything!", and it's like okay, sure, but that was your choice. And keeping going immediately trying to make sure the players got zero or very low benefit out of their ability to change the story was your choice.

You've obviously got to anticipate that the players will often change the story in ways that benefit them. That's not a problem. That's a baseline for you to work from! If it was considered a problem, the rule would specify that the players couldn't use it to their advantage, wouldn't it? You don't have to just try to immediately and directly negate the changes they made, either! That's a choice! A choice you made. That's on you. It's not on the rules or the game.

Sorry, this isn't like, personal, but one has to accept responsibility for one's own decisions as DM at some point. One has to say "Okay, I caused this situation!". We've all done it! There isn't a single person here who hasn't made some bad/questionable/regrettable decisions whilst DMing (or certainly not anyone who has played for decades)! And it can be tricky when you're using a new system too, because you haven't always considered all the options available to you, even if you intellectually know them.

I do think that you might have been too lenient on the players in one regard, like, was this guy even allowed to leave the building? And if he was, and the corp knew he was an extraction target, I don't think you needed to spend a chit to have a guard come with him (or a drone shadow him or w/e). I don't know SR Anarchy specifically but based on games with similar stuff for the PCs, I suspect you'd follow the fictional logic, so if the guy is going out to get coffee (which is kind of shocking if he's high-value enough to extract, there are flunkies and delivery guys for that!), that doesn't automatically mean he's alone etc.
 

Shadowrun Anarchy has a "The Players get to change and add to the story" element. My group tried it and I frickin' hated it. It came down to either using the ability to make the Run easier or for them to try to top each other and/or vs me the GM trying to stay one step ahead.

Like the Run was: Extract an employee from one Corp and deliver to another. They used their game changing ability to have the Emp walk out of the Corp to get coffee. I used mine to have him with a body guard. They used theirs that a punk occupies the guard while they grabbed him. I had the punks gang pop up and start a fire fight. The had the cops arrive. Etc Etc Etc while it may sound interesting it was just time spend on one upping each other.
Daggerheart is not designed for gamers out to win or optimize the fun out of the game. It’s designed for roleplayers looking to maximize the drama. Playing in good faith is required for some of these systems to work.

ETA: This exact thing is called out in Shadowrun Anarchy as abusing the system and not how it’s meant to be used. See page 56 of Shadowrun Anarchy.
 
Last edited:

Daggerheart is not designed for gamers out to win or optimize the fun out of the game. It’s designed for roleplayers looking to maximize the drama. Playing in good faith is required for some of these systems to work.
I think you're overstating it a bit. Just IMHO and all that.

I'm not seeing any rules-rules (i.e. not mere suggestions) which mean this Daggerheart requires any more good faith than say, 80% of the RPGs on the market, arguably including 5E D&D. Am I missing something? I've seen a bit too much weird characterization of some games (particularly narrative ones) as uniquely "vulnerable" to bad faith as if virtually all TTRPGs were not! I'm not saying you're doing that but it's part of why I'm questioning this.

Like, my feeling is that BitD/FitD and PtbA games require a lack of active malice, sure, require both the DM and players (if there is a DM) to not be like, hard-adversarial but again, most RPGs require this - CoC for example, is ancient but certainly does, adventures could be over in minutes with an adversarial DM - same for D&D for the most part.

Also, to me it looks like the game is designed around the players actually optimizing their PCs to a fair extent, and the level-up options seem to be designed specifically with the notion that the players will optimize their PCs.
 

Okay, but that's exactly the problem.

Instead of you saying "Okay, they can have this one, I'll get them later!", and saving your chit to make things exciting later (like, say, by having a corporate attack drone wing come after them when they were getting away with the guy, or there be a major pile-up on the escape route they wanted to use, or having him have some kind of medical episode so they need to get him to a hospital or serious street doc urgently or w/e) by your description, every time they did something, you immediately decided to try and mess with them in a very direct way, to just straightforwardly try and negate the (frankly minor) advantage they'd gained.

That's what's caused the situation you're describing. It didn't have to tedious one-upmanship, but you ensured it was. At any point you could have not one-upped them, not tried to totally invalidate their change, and saved your chit to do something cooler later.

You can't blame the game for decisions you made. It's someone playing a Wizard in D&D saying "I blew all my spells in the first combat or two and then I couldn't do anything!", and it's like okay, sure, but that was your choice. And keeping going immediately trying to make sure the players got zero or very low benefit out of their ability to change the story was your choice.

You've obviously got to anticipate that the players will often change the story in ways that benefit them. That's not a problem. That's a baseline for you to work from! If it was considered a problem, the rule would specify that the players couldn't use it to their advantage, wouldn't it? You don't have to just try to immediately and directly negate the changes they made, either! That's a choice! A choice you made. That's on you. It's not on the rules or the game.

Sorry, this isn't like, personal, but one has to accept responsibility for one's own decisions as DM at some point. One has to say "Okay, I caused this situation!". We've all done it! There isn't a single person here who hasn't made some bad/questionable/regrettable decisions whilst DMing (or certainly not anyone who has played for decades)! And it can be tricky when you're using a new system too, because you haven't always considered all the options available to you, even if you intellectually know them.

I do think that you might have been too lenient on the players in one regard, like, was this guy even allowed to leave the building? And if he was, and the corp knew he was an extraction target, I don't think you needed to spend a chit to have a guard come with him (or a drone shadow him or w/e). I don't know SR Anarchy specifically but based on games with similar stuff for the PCs, I suspect you'd follow the fictional logic, so if the guy is going out to get coffee (which is kind of shocking if he's high-value enough to extract, there are flunkies and delivery guys for that!), that doesn't automatically mean he's alone etc.


Also, they started trying to hinder each other. As a post below says, it's a system that requires "good faith" from the players all allowing them to "do as though wilt" drags things along. At the end of the day everyone should be having fun IMO. Not just the few who go crazy with power.
 

Part of what appears to be the issue is that folks define "fun" differently from group to group. As an example, I ran the FFG Star Wars for a while and enjoyed it for the most part. The group I ran with enjoyed the game as well, but most of the narrative functions of the game weren't used very much, and it didn't interrupt their fun.

I've seen a variety of groups in my time rolling dice, and sometimes you get folks who want to live in the world with their characters, and other times you get murder hobos who just want the power fantasy. In the same respect, you have games that cater to either idea. Heck, D&D caters to them both (and many others), particularly when you're running the older variations. It doesn't make them more or less "fun" in general, but rather just for the person/group playing.

DarkCrisis, you keep saying that "everyone should be having fun." Did you and your group have fun? Great if they did. If they didn't, maybe you should reevaluate the game you're running or the system being used. A great example is a time I ran Fate for a group. Most of the folks had been gaming for a while and we were all looking forward to it. But after running one session, I knew it wasn't for them. How? They had an issue with the Fate Point mechanics and the simplicity of the game. Within two weeks, I had folks asking me to run GURPS instead, which kind of blew my mind.

TL;DR? The gist is, not everyone plays in the same style and it shouldn't be expected. Don't like the way a game runs? Play something else. Or play with folks that are aligned with the game you want to play. Plain and simple.
 

Also, they started trying to hinder each other. As a post below says, it's a system that requires "good faith" from the players all allowing them to "do as though wilt" drags things along. At the end of the day everyone should be having fun IMO. Not just the few who go crazy with power.
I pointed out that that post seems to be overstating things slightly.

Almost all TTRPGs require considerable good faith, especially on the part of the DM, to not break down. The issue you're describing doesn't seem to be good faith, it seems to be "new and unfamiliar rules". With older rules you've already internalized playing them a way that's not destructive, even though you could. With these, it doesn't look like you had.
 
Last edited:

Also, they started trying to hinder each other. As a post below says, it's a system that requires "good faith" from the players all allowing them to "do as though wilt" drags things along. At the end of the day everyone should be having fun IMO. Not just the few who go crazy with power.
Again, this is specifically called out in Shadowrun Anarchy as not acceptable.

It is similarly called out in Daggerheart.

A given group not being able to handle more narrative control does not mean narrative control is bad.

Not every game is for every group. That’s to be expected.
 

Into the Woods

Related Articles

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top