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.