The Daggerheart Inspirational Thread [+]

[Jacob Lewis]

It’s been a long time since I cared about a new RPG. I had stopped looking—stopped expecting to feel anything from a new system, let alone an edition. I was done buying books, learning rules, chasing the promise of a table I’d probably never sit at.

But Daggerheart caught me off guard. I didn’t plan to be interested. I’m not chasing trends or hype. And yet, I bought the hardcover without waiting for a discount—the first time I’ve done that in years. I'm still reading through it, and for the first time in a long while, I’m reading a game manual cover to cover. Not because I’m prepping, but because I’m enjoying it.

I don’t know if I’ll ever run or play this game. I’m not keen on public spaces or online tables, and I’m not looking to build a group. But I’m still finding joy here. The book is inspiring on its own.

I made this thread to share what I find as I go—ideas, lines, moments that land. Maybe others will share what resonated with them too. This is a [+] thread, so if you're here to complain, you're in the wrong place.

---

To start things off, I’ll begin with what might be the most overlooked—and most important—part of the Core Rulebook: the Introduction.

It’s easy to skip past this section. Most of us don’t need a primer on what a roleplaying game is. We assume we know the shape of the thing already. But what stood out to me is how deliberately the designers set expectations—about tone, about play, about what the game is not trying to be. That clarity starts on page 4, and it echoes through the mechanics and writing that follow.

These opening passages were the first sign that Daggerheart wasn’t just another ruleset. They made me stop, reread, and start to pay closer attention.

WHAT KIND OF ROLEPLAYING GAME IS DAGGERHEART?
Daggerheart is a heroic, narrative-focused experience that features combat as a prominent aspect of play. The system facilitates emotionally engaging, player-driven stories punctuated by exciting battles and harrowing challenges. The game takes a fiction-first approach, encouraging players and GMs to act in good faith with one another and focus on the story they’re telling rather than the complexity of the mechanics. The rules provide structure when it’s unclear how actions or moments will resolve within that story. The system takes a free-flowing approach to combat to avoid slowing the game down with granular rounds, and it doesn’t rely on grid-based movement for maps and minis. These aspects coalesce to create a game that allows for the terrain and map-building that miniature-based systems are known for while facilitating a streamlined, narrative experience for players.

Reading this, I realized how directly the system speaks to the kind of experience I’ve been looking for—one that respects the time and presence of everyone at the table. What stood out most was that phrase: “act in good faith.” That’s not fluff—it’s a mechanical expectation. The game assumes everyone is here to contribute, collaborate, and be changed by the story. It’s not built for adversarial players or rule lawyers. That’s my kind of game. My kind of gamers.

I’d love to hear what stood out for others. What about Daggerheart inspires you?

 

[Pulpfan1971]

I found myself surprised by how empowering and inspirational the campaign frames have been.

When I read through them, my initial response was “meh” not enough to be helpful. Too much to be open ended. I felt like something more akin to Savage Worlds “plot points” would be better.

But

I'm playing in a “Witherwild” game with my spouse and a bunch of kids in their early 20s (and our daughter is a first time GM) and running a “Five Banners Burning” campaign with folks in our late 30s to early 50s.

Each time, the players really took off with the frame and made it their own. In Witherall, we have romantic entanglements (Kriel is in love with my wife and that thrust is driving him being both super helpful and kinda a dick) , we inserted a history to the Fanewraith (she's Snow White. If Snow had been murdered by the huntsman and resurrected by something powerful and vengeful). And I could go on but I don't want to bore folks.

I was gonna have my other group create a world from scratch. But they all really like the Five Banners frame and over the course of session zero. Made it their own. One where these misfits and outcasts end up accidently at the center of the reshaping of the world.

Each campaign is on the back side of Tier 2 and the groups are super bought in. And I am so pleased to be wrong

 

[zakael19]

The relative low-levels of baked in lore combined with pretty solid magic-heavy class foundations have inspired me to put together and run with a pair of game ideas I’ve had kicking around for a while: one classic D&D trappings campaign heavily based on the world of the Paksennarion books; and one modern-ish urban fantasy. It’s just easy to play with the flavor already there and sketch something in for players to build on with you.

 

[Tonguez]

Campaign Frames have become my new toy, I've sat down and done maybe 10 or so Campaign Frames in the last week alone - whole campaign ideas or parts of existing settings (nations, locations etc)

 

[Vael]

... Well, I ran my first session last night, and the two things that really stood out for me were:

1. Experiences and Connections. That section of character building did a lot of flesh in a world that I had barely sketched for a simple one-shot ... that now seems to be a promising campaign. A lot of roleplaying was done during character creation, which made the process really skate by.

2. Playing without Initiative. This was my big question mark about the system ... would this work? And boy howdy, it did. Players naturally jumped in when it made sense, they volleyed to each other, and yet I felt my monsters still got a lot of play to press the players because I could also jump in and spend a lot of Fear when I wanted. This one surprised me, and I'm legit thinking this is Daggerheart's killer app. It just kept the whole table engaged, I've seen players check out a bit once their turn is done in static initiative systems, I did not see that here.

Now, admittedly, first game. Time for bumps to happen. But for now, I feel inspired by Daggerheart.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I want to share this video again before it gets buried under another 70+ pages of posts. It’s a detailed review of Daggerheart by someone who originally didn’t think the game would appeal to them:


What sets this apart is that the reviewer actually played and ran the game at conventions, with multiple groups—not just friends or a familiar home table. So the feedback isn’t theoretical. It reflects real play across different tables and perspectives.

He approaches the game as both a GM and a player, and as a designer himself. He walks through the rulebook, breaks down some mechanics, and comments on where the system shines—and where it might fall short. He also addresses several of the more common criticisms making the rounds, and points out some limitations based on his own observations.

It’s not a glowing endorsement, and it’s not a takedown. It’s a balanced, informed perspective.

If you’re still trying to get a clear sense of what kind of game Daggerheart actually is—on the page and at the table—it’s well worth watching.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

2. Playing without Initiative. This was my big question mark about the system ... would this work? And boy howdy, it did.

This is the huge one for me.

Throwing out essentially both initiative and actions was something that I kind of went back and forth on (strongly considering the "3 tokens" optional rule they suggested), and I think would have been very scared of had I not had good experiences with PtbA games already (which operate this way, or at least the ones I've played do). One of the players was also very suspicious of it, telling me that like, detailed individual initiative was clearly the Gold Standard (TM) for initiative but he'd be open to trying this.

But MY GOD it's such an improvement for me and the entire group - including Mr Suspicious - at least from what they said/we saw at the table! Just made things flow vastly better and so much faster. Like, my god, the hours we spent tracking initiative and actions/minor actions/move actions/reactions/immediate actions/interrupts etc. etc. in 3.5E and 4E (and to some extent 5E, which did at least try and put a lid on this a bit). It helped as well that you can often help another PC - either 1 Hope to give them Advantage, or 3 Hope to do the Attack Together option (I forget the term) which is very powerful (and also further biases things slightly in favour of the PCs, as, as long as both rolls beat the Difficulty of the monster, you can pick the one that's with Hope, and you each get a Hope, meaning the total cost to the group was 1 Hope!). That really helped keep people engaged as you say.

I'm not sure I'd ever run individual initiative again outside of a simulationist-oriented realism-leaning anti-heroic RPG. Even for other D&D-likes I suspect side-based is the way to go for me.

 

[Arilyn]

I love how the players, as they get used to their abilities and the options, are really cooperating and doing cool moves in combat. The lack of initiative is great. Everyone is engaged and combat stays exciting.

 

[BruceWright]

Now that I’ve played it, i’ve come to the conclusion that lack of initiative in combat is like taking the training wheels off the bike.

it’s scary at first. But once you take them off you find you don’t need them!

 

[Seramus]

I love how the players, as they get used to their abilities and the options, are really cooperating and doing cool moves in combat. The lack of initiative is great. Everyone is engaged and combat stays exciting.

I really love how most buffing or team support abilities don't require a roll. So anyone can do a "double action" by quickly saying something like "I cast Tava's Armor on Jane, then sling an Ice Spike at the slime!" That's technically two spotlights, but since the buff neither fails nor generates fear the spotlight remains on the player's side... allowing them to go again and do something active!

In theory, someone could build around a LOT of buffs and just go over and over as long as their own resources last, but most of my players passed the baton after a "double tap" and didn't stretch for three in a row.