We stopped playing Daggerheart

[Umbran]

All attacks that land do at least 1 damage by default no?

If the target has armor, they can choose to spend a point of it to not take that damage. And there are any number of powers/abilities that may allow them to not take damage.

 

[Umbran]

It's still a mechanic designed to facilitate storytelling rather than represent something specific in the world.

It is as much a mechanic designed as an aspect of gameplay, rather than storytelling - Hope is one of a Player's main game resources, and Fear drives the GM's action economy.

There is more to RPG design than simulation and storytelling.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is as much a mechanic designed as an aspect of gameplay, rather than storytelling - Hope is one of a Player's main game resources, and Fear drives the GM's action economy.

But what does it represent in the setting? What are your characters doing when the players spend Hope, or the NPCs are doing when the GM spends Fear? Unless that question can be answered with something concrete, IMO that mechanic is disassociated.

 

[Retreater]

I really appreciate your experience and your post. I have run a similar number of sessions with Daggerheart, and we just finished our campaign. I have also felt there wasn't enough content to keep players happy (with build options) or monsters for the GM.
We're going to be using a 3rd party sci-fi "mega" framework. I'm augmenting DH with Stars Without Number planets and procedural generation. I'm going to create spaceships and power armor.
I'm going to be putting DH on a lot of life support to keep it relevant for a second campaign. Time will tell if it will be worth it.
The stuff Darrington is teasing (new adventures, actual plays, etc) does nothing to help me as a GM. "Hope and Fear" is what we need. More domain power options for existing domains, more adversaries. That's what we need.

 

[Tigris]

But what does it represent in the setting? What are your characters doing when the players spend Hope, or the NPCs are doing when the GM spends Fear? Unless that question can be answered with something concrete, IMO that mechanic is disassociated.

Thats on you as a player or GM to figure out if you care about this.

There exist no disassociated mechanics, its just a lack of fantasy by the players.


The easiest explanation is just good luck/bad luck or Karma. And the abilities which need to spend hope are things which are hard to do and need a bit of luck (like enemy positioned specifically etc.)

If the target has armor, they can choose to spend a point of it to not take that damage. And there are any number of powers/abilities that may allow them to not take damage.

Yeah and armor is just a more complicated secondary HP bar. So they still take damage.

EDIT: And also monsters normally do not have armor. Thats just baked into HP because, as I said, its just HP in the end to make it more complicated.

 

[Umbran]

But what does it represent in the setting?

The name is right there on the tin - they represent fear and hope!

What are your characters doing when the players spend Hope, or the NPCs are doing when the GM spends Fear?

Have you ever heard of the "spoons" analogy? It is a metaphor that originated to describe how people with chronic illness, disability, or mental health conditions have limited physical and psychological energy to deal with life. It is like that. When characters spend Hope, they are expending their spoons - using up their emotional fortitude and the psychological cope needed to continue at full force.

The GM spends fear, they are often taking advantage of the small hesitance that fear and anxiety induces in people - and, in some cases using that emotional state/energy as an outright source of magical power.

I don't mind if you think it is "dissociated" - that's a valid take on them for yourself. But that word/concept often has trouble dealing with matters that are intangible, which can be dissociated or not, depending on interpretation.

Unless that question can be answered with something concrete, IMO that mechanic is disassociated.

You might view a dissociated mechanic to not be part of simulation. As a person who used to make his bread writing simulations, I'd say you'd be technically incorrect, but you can have that view.

But you went from there to it being about "storytelling', which does not follow. Dissociated mechanics may be about things other than story.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I really appreciate your experience and your post. I have run a similar number of sessions with Daggerheart, and we just finished our campaign. I have also felt there wasn't enough content to keep players happy (with build options) or monsters for the GM.
We're going to be using a 3rd party sci-fi "mega" framework. I'm augmenting DH with Stars Without Number planets and procedural generation. I'm going to create spaceships and power armor.
I'm going to be putting DH on a lot of life support to keep it relevant for a second campaign. Time will tell if it will be worth it.
The stuff Darrington is teasing (new adventures, actual plays, etc) does nothing to help me as a GM. "Hope and Fear" is what we need. More domain power options for existing domains, more adversaries. That's what we need.

If you feel you have to give DH that much support to make it a good experience for you and your players, what are you getting out of the core system that potentially makes it worth it? Why not use another system that suits your needs better?

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

...As a person who used to make his bread writing simulations..

100% mean to detract from the discussion. First time I read this, I wondered what "bread writing simulation" was.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thats on you as a player or GM to figure out if you care about this.

There exist no disassociated mechanics, its just a lack of fantasy by the players.


The easiest explanation is just good luck/bad luck or Karma. And the abilities which need to spend hope are things which are hard to do and need a bit of luck (like enemy positioned specifically etc.)

But we don't control probability like that, so any mechanic that does (unless explicitly stated otherwise in setting lore) is disassociated from the setting and the actions of creatures within it.

Your position makes no sense to me. Are you blaming other players for not thinking the way you do?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The name is right there on the tin - they represent fear and hope!



Have you ever heard of the "spoons" analogy? It is a metaphor that originated to describe how people with chronic illness, disability, or mental health conditions have limited physical and psychological energy to deal with life. It is like that. When characters spend Hope, they are expending their spoons - using up their emotional fortitude and the psychological cope needed to continue at full force.

The GM spends fear, they are often taking advantage of the small hesitance that fear and anxiety induces in people - and, in some cases using that emotional state/energy as an outright source of magical power.

I don't mind if you think it is "dissociated" - that's a valid take on them for yourself. But that word/concept often has trouble dealing with matters that are intangible, which can be dissociated or not, depending on interpretation.



You might view a dissociated mechanic to not be part of simulation. As a person who used to make his bread writing simulations, I'd say you'd be technically incorrect, but you can have that view.

But you went from there to it being about "storytelling', which does not follow. Dissociated mechanics may be about things other than story.

They can be, yes. My issues with what I see as disassociated mechanics do not end at storytelling. To me they are a necessary evil at best.

And no, I don't see mechanics that deal with intangibles like hope and fear as associated with the physical setting.