I am surprised I am still excited for Daggerheart

Reynard

aka Ian Eller
Supporter
I just watched the new five minute Daggerheart video from Darrington, and I realized to my own surprise that i am, in fact, still excited to get my hands on the complete game. I am not sure why, except that i think it has potential to be a fun, dramatic, surprising game.

I say "surprised" because there are a few games I was hot on before, and that just faded -- not least MCDM's Draw Steel.

Anyway -- is anyone else excited for Daggerheart? What do you plan on doing with it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad





Blades in the Dark just got its first official support in nearly 8 years. Why does a good game need support?
Yeah the idea that there's no room for "one-and-done" RPGs seems a bit ridiculous. Especially as CO released barely a year ago.

I do prefer that successful products which could benefit from support get it (BitD kind of didn't need it), in part because I'm lazy, but if a product is complete as released, it's not needed. And unofficial support is fine if a game is popular and set up so people can easily create for it - just look at Mothership - tons and tons of awesome non-official stuff for it.

Re: Daggerheart specifically, I'm pretty interested. The cards concern me a little bit, for kind of complicated reasons relating to game lifespan, but there's a lot to love about it. One thing I initially stuck my nose up about was how diverse the species were - not ethnically, come on! - I mean, like the robots include every kind of robot, the dragon-people every kind of dragon-person, etc. etc. but then I realized I was being a moron - I'm exactly the target audience for that. I'm exactly the guy who refuses play a Tiefling because in this edition they look like this, whereas I wanted them to look like that. And this game is letting me choose - giving me the power, so why am I being snooty? There's no good reason!

(I'm still very interested in Draw Steel! but I do worry the setting peculiarities will end up making it very much a book that sits on people's shelves rather than gets played unless they're easy to ignore.)

(EDIT - Also re: Daggerheart the one thing I think was a miss - which hey they may fix for next release - is having the "beast-people" species all be separate, and having goat-people, cow-people, tortoise-people, cat-people, frog-people, and monkey-people. Especially given there's no species-based elements of culture or personality. They should have just had a broader deal where you could pick your beast-person origin creature and pick one line 1 and one line 2 ability - you can do the latter mechanically anyway via being multi-species. It's weird that they're missing like, bird-people and lizard-people and other fantasy classics too. It's not like, anything a DM couldn't sort out, but it was a weird approach. It also causes some oddities like a 350lb Gorilla-person having the same bonus evasion and balancing bonus as a 80lb hyper-agile monkey-person. The art is completely fantastic at least. Absolutely ate D&D's lunch there already.)
 
Last edited:

Blades in the Dark just got its first official support in nearly 8 years. Why does a good game need support?
You asked if we were interested in Daggerheart, I replied why I am not and stated my preference as a customer. I prefer publishers who offer official material after the initial core book.

For example, we play Vaesen and love the regular campaign book output by Free League. Our GM prefers to have official adventures to run because it requires less work, etc.

@Ruin Explorer: There is nothing 'a bit ridiculous' about that.
 
Last edited:

You asked if we were interested in Daggerheart, I replied why I am not and stated my preference as a customer. I prefer publishers who offer official material after the initial core book.

For example, we play Vaesen and love the regular campaign book output by Free League. Our GM prefers to have official adventures to run because it requires less work, etc.

There is nothing 'a bit ridiculous' about that.
I only asked why you felt that way. I did not use the word "ridiculous."
 


You asked if we were interested in Daggerheart, I replied why I am not and stated my preference as a customer. I prefer publishers who offer official material after the initial core book.

For example, we play Vaesen and love the regular campaign book output by Free League. Our GM prefers to have official adventures to run because it requires less work, etc.

@Ruin Explorer: There is nothing 'a bit ridiculous' about that.
Your stated position was:
If Darrington Press wants to be an RPG publisher they should support the games they put out.
The bolded bits are what, personally, I find to be ridiculous.

Not preferring that that they do, which I also prefer, but saying that if they want to be a publisher, they essentially must put out extra material for every single RPG they publish. The reality is a lot of really good RPGs have had very little or no support, and are still really good RPGs.

Also, and you don't say this, but it's implied, it seems like you might be assuming they're going to do the same with Daggerheart, and I don't think that's a logical assumption personally, unless Darrington said they were going to put out a ton of stuff for CO, and then just didn't (wait, did they?). One suspects that if Daggerheart is successful they'll actually be pretty keen to sell sourcebooks and adventures and card packs for it. Especially those high-cost high-margin card packs.

For example, we play Vaesen and love the regular campaign book output by Free League. Our GM prefers to have official adventures to run because it requires less work, etc.
Me too! But I accept this is because I am a lazy so-and-so sometimes, and I don't think it's like, an intrinsic and nigh-required part of publishing RPGs.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top