Daggerheart Sold Out in Two Weeks, Has Three-Year Plan in Place

A recent interview with Business Insider revealed just how well Daggerheart did for Critical Role's Darrington Press when it first launched earlier this year. Ed Lopez, Critical Role's chief operating officer, revealed that Daggerheart sold out in two weeks. According to Lopez, Critical Role anticipated that their stock would last a year, but the game was forced to go into reprints in a hurry. "The amount of units that we ordered we thought was going to last us a year, and it lasted us literally two weeks," Lopez said. "It's a great problem, it's a Champagne problem, but it's now changing our view in terms of what this product can be."

Lopez also revealed that Darrington Press has a three-year plan in place for Daggerheart, which includes the already announced Hope & Fear expansion, which adds a new domain and several new classes and backgrounds to the game.

Lopez also spoke about the hires of Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins, stating that the two would be working on both Daggerheart and D&D material for Darrington Press. "We really want their creative juices brought to the world of 'Daggerheart.' That being said, we're also doing a bunch of 'D&D' stuff, and who better to bring in than the guys who used to do it?" Lopez said.

 

[Imaro]

The thing here is that I'd say it's an awesome system for a table full of GMs, flexible players, or new roleplayers. New roleplayers come in ready, willing, and able to improvise. Long standing players who have stuck to D&D and other trad RPGs, especially when playing adventure paths, have often had that ability atrophy. And this is a damning indictment of D&D 5e and other similar games - and one of the things Daggerheart does better than many other systems is helps people recover the ability to improv while being lower pressure than e.g. something PbtA.

Disagree... I think for shy or reserved new players(and yes I've seen this first hand) the demand of instant improv and being put on the spot is uncomfortable and at times a deterrent which can actually lead to them feeling rpg's aren't for them.

Im not sure where the idea that everyone, unless D&D somehow hurt the part of their brain connected to it, find being put on the spot to instantly create fictional things in front of an audience easy, awesome or even fun by default.... but its just not true.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Disagree... I think for shy or reserved new players(and yes I've seen this first hand) the demand of instant improv and being put on the spot is uncomfortable and at times a deterrent which can actually lead to them feeling rpg's aren't for them.

Im not sure where the idea that everyone, unless D&D somehow hurt the part of their brain connected to it, find being put on the spot to instantly create fictional things in front of an audience easy, awesome or even fun by default.... but its just not true.

I would say that things are overwhelmingly in the other direction though. That the sheer volume of crunch in 5e puts people off (and yes, I'm a veteran of GURPS, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and 4e; I know how little relative crunch 5e has) - and this applies even among existing 5e players despite the survivor bias. The question "What do you do?" has almost never in my experience caused problems and I've only ever run into one player who had problems with connections questions. And being able to add detail of what their character notices draws players in.

 

[Imaro]

I would say that things are overwhelmingly in the other direction though. That the sheer volume of crunch in 5e puts people off (and yes, I'm a veteran of GURPS, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and 4e; I know how little relative crunch 5e has) - and this applies even among existing 5e players despite the survivor bias. The question "What do you do?" has almost never in my experience caused problems and I've only ever run into one player who had problems with connections questions. And being able to add detail of what their character notices draws players in.

Very little of the crunch in 5e, especially at 1st level has to be player facing. 5e runs perfectly fine with the DM being the interface and arbitrator for most of, if not all of, the rules.

If the only improv you're having players do is asking... "What do you do?" and/or answering connection questions then we have pretty different ideas on the type and amount of improv DH sets out as a default from its text and principles. My understanding is that PC's should be collaborating on the world, factions, descriptions and more. I also dont see how playing 5e would somehow hinder ones ability to answer "What do you do?" or even answer connection questions...

 

[mamba]

That the sheer volume of crunch in 5e puts people off (and yes, I'm a veteran of GURPS, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and 4e; I know how little relative crunch 5e has) - and this applies even among existing 5e players despite the survivor bias.

so DH is significantly less crunchy? that was not my understanding

The question "What do you do?" has almost never in my experience caused problems

sure, but there is a bit of difference between describing what your character does and inventing things in the world

I am far from convinced that most players would prefer the latter

 

[zakael19]

so DH is significantly less crunchy? that was not my understanding


sure, but there is a bit of difference between describing what your character does and inventing things in the world

I am far from convinced that most players would prefer the latter

Really? All my new to TTRPGing players in the last 5e campaign I ran got way more into play when they were adding details and providing the impetus for the next quest then when we were running the plotted campaign they had picked.

Now yeah, some people simply struggle with in-the-moment creativity (my wife is one, she can’t do even baseline TTRPG RP improv at all despite wanting to join in), but I’m seeing across a broad spectrum of players minimal issue.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Very little of the crunch in 5e, especially at 1st level has to be player facing. 5e runs perfectly fine with the DM being the interface and arbitrator for most of, if not all of, the rules.

I'm sorry, but to say this in a Daggerheart thread is silly. In terms of player facing numbers before choosing a race or a class a basic 5e character has:

• Six stats
• Six stat bonuses
• Six saving throws (of which at least two are different from your stat bonuses)
• Seventeen skills (not counting languages and tool proficiencies)
• Proficiency bonus
• Hit points
• Hit dice
• Armour class
• Attack bonus
• Weapon Damage
• Either an origin feat or a background bonus

And that's before you get into class abilities, racial abilities, and spells.

Of the first thirty five numbers on the front of the 5e character sheet a first level Daggerheart character has ... eight. And IMO not one thing of value has been lost. And even if the DM is the "interface and arbitrator for most of, if not all of, the rules" you are still dealing with a character sheet with over forty different numbers before any racial and class abilities. 5e is a crunchy game for new players even if the DM is carrying the load of deeper rules knowledge.

And the DM carrying the load doesn't mean that the load isn't there. For many players this leaves them well aware they have training wheels on and are adding to the DM's workload.

If the only improv you're having players do is asking... "What do you do?" and/or answering connection questions then we have pretty different ideas on the type and amount of improv DH sets out as a default from its text and principles. My understanding is that PC's should be collaborating on the world, factions, descriptions and more. I also dont see how playing 5e would somehow hinder ones ability to answer "What do you do?" or even answer connection questions...

Believe it or not the volume of improv I have the players do is set to their comfort levels. It's IMO an example of extreme double standards to say that 5e runs fine with the DM being player interface and arbiter of the rules and not to extend the same courtesy to Daggerheart where the only improv that players must do is the origins and connections questions and it runs perfectly fine if you run it as if it was 5e.

I prefer to bring my players in more than the default 5e assumptions, and Daggerheart gives me more encouragement and motivation to do so but if you run Daggerheart as if it was 5e with an Adventure Path you'll essentially get rules light and chaotic 5e with an unusually cohesive party and slick combat. Is this the best Daggerheart? No. But Daggerheart's near-failure state here is still good 5e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

so DH is significantly less crunchy? that was not my understanding

Yes Daggerheart is significantly less crunchy than 5e. I gave a comparison of how (cutting down 35 numbers to 8) - do you want more examples? And if so from the player side or the DM side?

sure, but there is a bit of difference between describing what your character does and inventing things in the world

It's not as hard a line as you think. "What do you smell?" or even "what alerts you to the ambush before you spot the glint of sunlight on metal arrowhead?" to a ranger in a forest is a character question.

I am far from convinced that most players would prefer the latter

I am absolutely convinced that 90% prefer the latter and get significantly more engaged when I allow them to help set things. Yes that's not all players but I have done both with the same players. And players like to see their things.

 

[Tigris]

I'm sorry, but to say this in a Daggerheart thread is silly. In terms of player facing numbers before choosing a race or a class a basic 5e character has:
Of the first thirty five numbers on the front of the 5e character sheet a first level Daggerheart character has ... eight.

Well I do agree that less numbers are enough most of the time. But in actual reality a new player in D&D 5E only needs to know their actions (which for beginners often just is walk and attack) and need to know that they roll a D20.

Thats in practice enough, I have seen that several times with new players. You need to know what you can do, not what the numbers are, because as long as 1 other more experienced player is there (or an experienced GM), they can tell them which numbers they need to add to the D20 or which damage dice they roll for the damage roll.

This even worked in a group with a first time DM in D&D in a party with 4 first time D&D players and 2 "experienced" players (of which one left).


People (who play not PF2) are rarely interested in the numbers, they are interested in the options they have, and they can be quite small. In RP you say you say what you want to do and the GM tells if you need to do a roll and then you do the roll and if it is needed anyone can tell which number to add (or rarely subtract).


I agree the character sheet has too many different unneeded numbers, but starting to play its fine not knowing them

I have even seen small children (10 year old), play The Dark Eye in a convention without any problem, with exactly the same approach. You ask them "what do you want to be? Oh an Assassin? Sure here thats you" and done. Same in 5E. Beginners say their intention, others can handle numbers (including character creation).


I know this has to do with how "Crunch" is not always understood the same, because it comes from "number crunching", but most people understand under "crunch" having a big number of options, because that makes things complex.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well I do agree that less numbers are enough most of the time. But in actual reality a new player in D&D 5E only needs to know their actions (which for beginners often just is walk and attack) and need to know that they roll a D20.

Thats in practice enough, I have seen that several times with new players. You need to know what you can do, not what the numbers are, because as long as 1 other more experienced player is there (or an experienced GM), they can tell them which numbers they need to add to the D20 or which damage dice they roll for the damage roll.

In my experience that lasts for at most the first two sessions. The player, after all, knows they are being carried by the more experienced players and no one actively likes that feeling. That you can put things off for a couple of sessions doesn't mean it doesn't last forever.

This even worked in a group with a first time DM in D&D in a party with 4 first time D&D players and 2 "experienced" players (of which one left).

I've taught enough newbies to play in my time. They've almost all come back from beginner to campaign. What you describe is how the first session goes. But not knowing what you should roll makes players feel like the burden on the group and the n00b; everyone knows that newbies should be encouraged and newbies know they are newbies. The question is how long the hand holding goes on.

It's not the first session that's the problem. It's the third (or other number dependent on player and group).

 

[zakael19]

Also like, the entire core of DH fits on a single play guide sheet (3rd page, 4th if you include the char sheet “sidecars”) because you don’t have heavily enumerated subsystem rules and such.