How many "steps" is too many?

[Argyle King]

Note: At the time of this post, I have not played Daggerheart.

Most of the criticism I've seen online is less about the number of steps and more about people saying that the additional steps aren't very meaningful.

So, to answer the question of "how many steps is too many," I think the answer depends upon the perception of what (if anything) those extra steps add to the game and whether or not those extra steps provide a perceived net benefit.

 

[Seramus]

I rarely ask people I meet how many steps is their limit of tolerance.

It usually comes up in the initial playtest phases when developing new systems. You get a couple dozen to a few hundred people (or whatever you can wrangle or afford), and try to talk to them afterwards about feelings about this or that. Sometimes in person, sometimes surveys. I might be preaching to the choir, though! Isn't Level Up your baby?

 

[Morrus]

It usually comes up in the initial playtest phases when developing new systems. You get a couple dozen to a few hundred people (or whatever you can wrangle or afford), and try to talk to them afterwards about feelings about this or that. Sometimes in person, sometimes surveys. I might be preaching to the choir, though! Isn't Level Up your baby?

I mean, we were talking about people we meet. I might try asking the cashier at Tesco's tomorrow how many steps their tolerance is, but I suspect I'll just get a funny look.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While I don't disagree with your assessment of cover, I don't think it is particularly useful to hang on to a pedantic definition of "circumstance modifier" for the purpose of the discussion.

Calling using "circumstance modifier" correctly, as a term that means a modifier based on the actual circumstances (like it sounds), as opposed to a modifier based on other factors like skills/traits/powers, given its demonstrated history in D&D specifically (as well as other games, including wargames), "pedantic" seems a lot like special pleading to me lol (or like someone has mentally blocked all memory of 3.XE D&D, which I can understand I guess), but you do you.

And the point remains, D&D 5E combat's default RAW approach has an extra step (check for cover, apply penalty if there), just one that's broadly ignored, and I think that is very relevant. If people took cover seriously, it could pretty quickly get annoying as in more cluttered environments indoor environments, forests, etc. and ones with PCs giving to cover to monsters and so on (and creatures explicitly do give cover) you'd virtually always have a cover modifier on ranged attacks, and somewhat frequently on melee ones. And even when you didn't, you'd often be considering whether it should be present.

But I've never seen nor even heard of anyone actually running it like that.

The most onerous resolution steps in my experience tend to ones involving:

A) The requirement that someone assess a situation to determine whether something applies. Especially if that thing has a potentially variable value like cover.

B) Math - especially subtraction.

C) Any kind of choice (like PbtA's choices, or Cortex's choice of dice, or systems where you have to "allocate" successes to different things)

You can really quickly escalate a simple/minor step that's not a problem into a really tedious one by adding some or all of those factors.

Or god help us:

D) Where resources can/must be allocated after the fact to influence success/failure. I'm struggling to think of a system that does this routinely (as opposed to only via abilities, Inspiration, etc.), but I know I played something where we basically had to roll then "pay", and people trying to work out how much to "pay" was a major brake.

 

[Piperken]

..Most of the criticism I've seen online [about Daggerheart] is less about the number of steps and more about people saying that the additional steps aren't very meaningful.

So, to answer the question of "how many steps is too many," I think the answer depends upon the perception of what (if anything) those extra steps add to the game and whether or not those extra steps provide a perceived net benefit.

I feel this is where intentions comes into play (and part of the reason why OP question would be best answered by designers).

For a table that is really versed in D&D-style games or fiction first/improv games (e.g. PbtA or the like), Daggerheart may not be a good fit; there will be steps that won't feel meaningful.

For tables who consists of absolutely new players (and table runner), or players (and table runner) who are used to D&D-style games & are getting their 1st exposure to fiction first/improv games, Daggerheart's system hits a lot of spots, and readily provides support to explore.

They clearly wanted to have system that plays somewhere in the middle of these two spaces.

 

[Reynard]

I feel this is where intentions comes into play (and part of the reason why OP question would be best answered by designers).

For a table that is really versed in D&D-style games or fiction first/improv games (e.g. PbtA or the like), Daggerheart may not be a good fit; there will be steps that won't feel meaningful.

For tables who consists of absolutely new players (and table runner), or players (and table runner) who are used to D&D-style games & are getting their 1st exposure to fiction first/improv games, Daggerheart's system hits a lot of spots, and readily provides support to explore.

They clearly wanted to have system that plays somewhere in the middle of these two spaces.

As I stated in the OP, one of the intents in creating this thread was to generalize the specific question of Daggerheart's steps.

I think we are doing a disservice to the subject broadly by focusing on Daggerheart vs 5E.

 

[aramis erak]

Spinning this out of the Daggerheart thread and making it more general.

When considering a particular process in play, how many steps is too many.

For example, in D&D, the process of attacking is: roll to hit, compare to AC, roll damage, apply damage.

In Daggerheart, the process is similar but has a couple extra steps: roll to hit, compare to difficulty/evasion, check for hope vs fear, roll damage, check threshold, potentially apply armor, reduce HP. Not terribly complex, but deffinitely more steps.

Daggerheart's is a bit easier... despite the extra step.

Also, you left out several steps on both:
state target,
check for modifiers/advantage/disadvantage from the situation
Spend Hope/Inspiration

It's not the steps for me; it's the complexity of the worst step. And if the result is multi-axis, is it worth the hassle? Genesys/FFG SW? yes. FFG L5R? Hell, yes! 2d20? yes, but only just. YZE? for me, yes, for a few players of mine, not really... but they were mollified by the die roller calculating successes and the side effects.

 

[Krachek]

Too many was 4ed.
Base bonus to hit +15
Then
Add +1 from one of your power
Then +2 from another power
Then +1 from ally A
Then +2 from ally B
Then -1 from enemy X
Then -2 from enemy Y
Finally you remember that your are bloodied giving you a +2
Then you ask if your target is also bloodied giving you another +1
Nightmare!
Then you hit, and you start all over the process for your damage bonus.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

In a system like Daggerheart, the step count may appear long on paper. Taken at face value, it looks like a bloated cousin of any standard d20 process. But the similarity is superficial.

What Daggerheart does differently is infuse each step with engagement. Every point in the process creates an opportunity—not just for outcome, but for participation. Rolling dice doesn’t just resolve success or failure; it sustains attention, builds momentum, and creates tension before the final result is revealed. Each step cues someone—player or GM—to do something active and meaningful.

For example, armor doesn't autmatically stop damage. It is a limited resource players must actively manage. They must make the conscious decision whether to use it, or save it for a more dire moment that may never happen.

This is also why the system works without a traditional turn structure or initiative order. There's a high degree of interaction embedded in every action. There's rarely a moment where one person just rolls a number while everyone else sits back and waits. They're not simply waiting their turn—they’re anticipating what happens next. Because the steps themselves drive the flow of events, play often shifts between players and GM in ways that feel spontaneous. That unpredictability generates tension, which in turn helps maintain attention—even when it’s not technically “your turn.”

Think of it like baseball versus basketball.

Traditional RPGs often resemble baseball. One player “bats” (takes their turn), while everyone else watches. The system pauses between turns. Each action is self-contained. Even when the steps are simple, they’re siloed—everyone else is just waiting for their turn at the plate.

Daggerheart plays more like basketball. The moment one player moves, others are reacting. A roll generates Hope or Fear—now the GM has a narrative opening. A hit lands—now the target decides whether to burn armor. The flow is continuous. There’s no clean division between actor and observer because the system keeps inviting engagement from both sides. It’s not just about who has the ball—it’s about who responds to what happens next.

That’s why the number of steps matters less than what those steps do. If each one keeps the game in motion, you don’t notice how many there are. You’re already moving with them.

So yes, it’s fair to say that a process full of dead steps—uninformative rolls, redundant modifiers, nested conditionals—can bog down a game. But that’s not Daggerheart’s issue. Its process is built to create momentum, not delay it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm on team "How big is a step? If one of the steps is a square root I'm out!" I've the following basics for step size (and it's not as detailed as it could be; if you're going right into the weeds order of operations matters to the point 6+d20 is faster to calculate than d20+6). And the tolerance is different for different people

Size of numbers from fastest to slowest

• +- 1
• Single digit numbers including round tens (10, 20, 30, etc.)
• Double digit numbers
• Triple digit numbers

Operations from fastest to slowest

• Comparison
• Marking singles
• Addition
• Subtraction
• Multiplication
• Division
• Division and remainder

I believe that the ordering is almost always consistent but how much to weight the steps along the order varies.

Other than at the comparison step (which 5e 100% has in combat; the rules for hitting with a natural 20 are different to any other hit) Daggerheart works to keep its steps simple.

And at least for me it's easier to compare 28 damage to thresholds of 21/42 and mark 2hp (two very quick steps) than it is to take 28 damage from 115 hp. One more step but both steps are lightning fast.