• 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

A given group not being able to handle more narrative control does not mean narrative control is bad.
I'd argue it doesn't even mean that group "can't handle it" for it to get out of hand just once the first time it's tried.

It just means a discussion needs to be had. The big issue I think here is really that we "worked out the kinks" of how to deal with other systems requiring good faith in our first few years gaming, but narrative stuff which requires similar working out is more recent for a lot of us.

If they still can't handle it after say, three sessions and two intervening discussions, then maybe it is time to pack up on that front!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
I could be wrong as I'm only going from a read at this point and not 'up against the wall of actual players'... but yeah.

When I read Daggerheart I kinda feel I could just play or run it with mostly regular players.

We'd get to a narrative moment and instead of saying "you see ABC in the alley" I'd say "what's in this alley?" and that... doesn't take any major leaps of faith other than "hey you, player number 3, your brain still on?"

And a lot of it is just letting my players say stuff rather than feeding them stuff.

As long as my players want a story, we'll make a story.

I've had recent players totally wreck my Pathfinder 2E games - where there's a rule for every little last detail. So no matter how much structure you have, players that want to break the glass and start that emergency will find a way. Players that want to work within the genre will as well.

People attribute to game engines a lot of issues that are actually 'social problems' with the table.
 

Well? Don't leave us in suspense!


Player improv/feeding ideas to the GM are really great tools. However - encouraging players to name landmarks sounds like it will lead to some broken immersion:

Biggroundcrack chasm,
Starbucks tavern,
Voldemort's mysterious tower...

The frog-dude (I named his homestead: the Lillypad) conjured Light No Fire images when I saw the OP image from Daggerheart. I'm no fan of anthropomorphs, but playing one might accustom me to the other.
I think this is part of the higher player buy-in most Narrativist-leaning games seem to demand.
 

Personally, I've no use for OSRIC... I love to read OSR games, but not to run most of them. Daggerheart is hitting that right blend of narrativism and sim that I like.
I'm basically the opposite. I find Narrativist games interesting sometimes, especially if the genre appeals to me, but have no interest in playing them.
 

I'd argue it doesn't even mean that group "can't handle it" for it to get out of hand just once the first time it's tried.

It just means a discussion needs to be had. The big issue I think here is really that we "worked out the kinks" of how to deal with other systems requiring good faith in our first few years gaming, but narrative stuff which requires similar working out is more recent for a lot of us.

If they still can't handle it after say, three sessions and two intervening discussions, then maybe it is time to pack up on that front!
Also, it's entirely possible to be capable of handling more narrative control in an RPG without wanting to do so or enjoying it.
 

As long as my players want a story, we'll make a story.
I think that's the crux of it.

One of the reasons I'm on the lookout for a game that actually explains how to implement narrative structure in a game is that while a lot of players might want a story, even after a lifetime of consuming stories, there's no guarantee they will actually know how to create a story in game.
 

I think that's the crux of it.

One of the reasons I'm on the lookout for a game that actually explains how to implement narrative structure in a game is that while a lot of players might want a story, even after a lifetime of consuming stories, there's no guarantee they will actually know how to create a story in game.
In my experience, mechanizing the means to create a story makes the resulting story feel less meaningful, since everyone involved knows what specifics actions they and their storytelling partners have taken to produce that narrative result.
 

Also, it's entirely possible to be capable of handling more narrative control in an RPG without wanting to do so or enjoying it.
Oh yeah for absolute 100% sure. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you want to! That's part of what I like about Daggerheart - it doesn't forcibly push you into "abandon all preparation, let's make up the story as we go!" territory. You can still write adventures for it, you can still draw maps, you can still prepare encounters beforehand, all of which is less true for a lot of purer PtbA games, at least if you play them as they encourage you to play them. Daggerheart wants input from the players, but doesn't require much more than 5E does and I think that's important.
 

How does the Hope/Fear mechanics plays out, exactly?

My biggest gripe with systems like Star Wars/Genesys is that advantages/setbacks happen too often, but in Daggerheart it seems it happens literally on every dice roll. This makes me wary, but reading through post there seems to be Hope/Fear pools, so I’m no longer sure how they’re being used.
 

How does the Hope/Fear mechanics plays out, exactly?

My biggest gripe with systems like Star Wars/Genesys is that advantages/setbacks happen too often, but in Daggerheart it seems it happens literally on every dice roll. This makes me wary, but reading through post there seems to be Hope/Fear pools, so I’m no longer sure how they’re being used.

Every check has one of four outcomes.
  • Success with Hope - Player gets a Hope Resource, succeeds check with a narrative bonus of some kind.
  • Success with Fear - GM gets a Fear Resource, succeeds check but with a narrative negative consequence of some kind.
  • Failure with Hope - Player gets a Hope Resource, but fails check. Failure comes with a narrative bonus of some kind.
  • Failure with Fear - GM gets a resource, player fails check and there's an additional negative consequence.
In combat, rolls with Hope and rolls with Fear largely determine who goes next in combat. Outside of combat, rolls with Fear can be determined by the GM or by the player. So, if a player has a roll with Fear, the GM can ask them to describe the narrative consequence of their check.
 

Into the Woods

Related Articles

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top