RPGs that you feel trip over their own cool ideas

[Umbran]

*54%, factoring in crits.

Thanks for the correction. Makes the points clear, though:

1) You can pretty easily got for a couple of rolls without generating Hope - any expectations otherwise are not a failure on the system's part.

2) Especially with some powers costing more than one Hope, you cannot expect to spend it every roll.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, but "well done" is not well-defined...



(emphasis mine)
Setting aside how Daggerheart doesn't have cleanly defined rounds, you mean?

It should not take you that long to go through four player's worth of actions. I don't know what you're doing, but it doesn't match my experience with the system.



The first part is inaccurate - a character can always take basic actions (interacting with the rules) without having Hope to spend. My very first session trying the game I was having horrible dice luck, and almost every roll was with Fear, but I was taking actions regularly.



You realize that characters start the session with Hope, and can get Hope back by resting? So, if you're walking around with none, that's a choice to not take a rest.

A character will, on average, generate Hope on about 65% of rolls, iirc (whenever the Hope die is equal to or greater than the Fear die). Therefore, if you are trying/expecting to spend on every roll, you are overspending.



Yeah, well, if you are comparing Daggerheart to Draw Steel, you are also comparing a more narratively-focused game to a crunch-focused one, which is kind of apples and oranges.

Which of the two is narrative-focused? I thought they both were.

 

[aramis erak]

Yeah, but "well done" is not well-defined...



(emphasis mine)
Setting aside how Daggerheart doesn't have cleanly defined rounds, you mean?

Actually, there's an optional rule (Action Tokens Optional Rule) which, while not using the term "round" creates a de-facto round. One I've used a lot - 3 actions per PC per round. Doesn't affect the GM's action economy. Does encourage all to participate. I was running 20 to 45 minutes for 5 PCs to all use all three... and we aren't a fast playing group.
If players don't alternate, it could easily wind up being 30 minutes before getting back in a slower group... but that's not RAI.

It should not take you that long to go through four player's worth of actions. I don't know what you're doing, but it doesn't match my experience with the system.

Agreed, same here.

The first part is inaccurate - a character can always take basic actions (interacting with the rules) without having Hope to spend. My very first session trying the game I was having horrible dice luck, and almost every roll was with Fear, but I was taking actions regularly.

Many of the "really kewl «bleep»" is gated behind stress or hope spends

You realize that characters start the session with Hope, and can get Hope back by resting? So, if you're walking around with none, that's a choice to not take a rest.

A character will, on average, generate Hope on about 65% of rolls, iirc (whenever the Hope die is equal to or greater than the Fear die). Therefore, if you are trying/expecting to spend on every roll, you are overspending.

It's actually 78/144, or 54.1666%, inclusive of the 8.333% criticals. (This leaves fear as 66/144 = 45.833%)

 

[Laurefindel]

One system I thought was tripping over its own feet was 7th Sea (1st ed).

In an enthusiastic bit to emulate a “de cape et d’épée” fiction, the system introduced a lot of knacks (skills) such as defence-swigning (for when you swing on the rope of a chandelier), defence-footing (for fighting on ground), defence-boating (for fighting on a rocking boat), defence-balance (when tightrope walking or balancing on rafters) etc. (Going by memory here)

In effect, either you’d distribute your skill points to suck at all of them, or specialize in one that might come up once because the GM took pity on you…