What do YOU plan on doing with Daggerheart?

[Imaro]

My mental boundary for D&D variants is somewhere near but probably including Dungeon World.

I see Daggerheart as much more of a tactical/crunchy PbtA variant than a D&D variant. Honestly I think this game might address my group's biggest issue with PbtA, ( the feeling it lacked mechanical omph in play) our first game is Saturday so we'll see.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think this is too broad to be useful for discussion. Dungeon fantasy or heroic fantasy? Sure.

But by your logic I can call Earthdawn a D&D variant because it aims to build a game in which D&D tropes make sense.

I don't think this is too broad. Dungeon World's design goal was to play like D&D did when you were 12 and words like "Dungeon" and "Old School" were all over the initial branding. It was at the very least a love letter.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think this is too broad. Dungeon World's design goal was to play like D&D did when you were 12 and words like "Dungeon" and "Old School" were all over the initial branding. It was at the very least a love letter.

I started a thread specifically on this topic, in case anyone wants to continue the discussion without gumming up this thread.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Honestly I think this game might address my group's biggest issue with PbtA, ( the feeling it lacked mechanical omph in play) our first game is Saturday so we'll see.

That was certainly how it felt to us having played it - a lot of PtbA games have mechanical elements that could potentially add to the game, but in practice they tend to get swamped by the moves and fictional positioning. Whereas with DH it felt like the mechanical elements, particularly the choice of what you were doing in combat, and the resource usage (HP/Stress/Armor/Hope) actually mattered and were significant. For the DM as well due to Fear being a surprisingly limited resource - I had to seriously consider when to spend it!

The other thing which I felt differentiated it from most PtbA games I'd played was that, weirdly, mechanical resolution of stuff out of combat seemed to be actually faster and smoother - not something I expected - an awful lot of PtbA games have a like "Roll the dice then look at this list specific to that move" (and sometimes you also have to work out which move actually applies) sort of approach, which I didn't realize was taking up time and/or being clunky but apparently was. DH uses this 5-position resolution system for everything, with no specific moves (success with hope/fear, failure with hope/fear, critical success), which doesn't require all this looking at lists and deciding which thing(s) happen or what you want to know or the like. It's slightly more simplistic but also somehow slightly less limited and smoother? I think for precision evocation of very specific moods and themes PtbA's specific moves are ahead but for a fast-moving heroic fantasy RPG? This is a better way. Or at least that's what I think right now.

My mental boundary for D&D variants is somewhere near but probably including Dungeon World.

I think this is too broad to be useful for discussion. Dungeon fantasy or heroic fantasy? Sure.

But by your logic I can call Earthdawn a D&D variant because it aims to build a game in which D&D tropes make sense.

I can see where both of you are coming from here but I'm not entirely sure there's a meaningful difference in your positions. Like, in DW a "D&D variant", strictly speaking? I mean, no, it's not, it's a D&D-inspired game with very distinct rules and structure, but equally, Earthdawn, whilst I don't think either of you would call it a "D&D variant", literally only exists (as you say) because it's an attempt to like, "rationalize" or "fix" D&D, tie D&D-type tropes into the actual world more, in some of the exact ways Eberron and 4E D&D did over a decade later. Neither of those games play out exactly like D&D in practice either (in fact they're about equally distant, in different directions).

(DW was also a bit misleading because whilst it did an aesthetic appeal to "what D&D was like when you were 12", the actual design and functionality was a lot closer to modern, heroic, 4E/5E D&D than either 1E dungeon crawling or 2E low-end heroism.)

 

[dbm]

I started a thread specifically on this topic, in case anyone wants to continue the discussion without gumming up this thread.

I’m not seeing that thread, got a link?

 

[Reynard]

I’m not seeing that thread, got a link?

Here you go

D&D General Thread 'What makes a TTRPG a "D&D Variant" to you?'

Today at 2:15 PM

[NOTE: I tried to post this in the actual variants subforum but there was no appropriate prefix.]

This has come up in a couple threads, so i thought we could focus a discussion on it.

Note that this is not a forum rules post, or a post about game geneology or taxonomy. Rather, this is a philosophical question: to you, personally, what makes a game a variant of D&D? What are the limits of that? Is it mechanical? Thematic? Intention?

Just by way of a wide example, in another thread someone called Dungeon World a D&D variant, and I personally would reject this classification. Trying to hit...

• Reynard
• Replies: 24
• Forum: D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants

 

[Faolyn]

I love me some 4E: it's my favorite edition. At the same time, DH doesn't interest me in the same way at all. I like DH and I'm looking forward to running/playing it, but not for the tactical combat minigame. I'd say that the people who hate 4E haven't shown themselves to hate on DH either.

OK, so I didn't play 4e, but a large part of that is because the first books made it clear (to me) it was very much a combat game. It looked like they removed nearly everything that wasn't combat-oriented. For instance: bards, (many) utility spells, good-aligned monsters. I know bards and at least some good monsters came in a later, and they probably added more social elements in later as well, but that lack turned me off enormously. I may have liked the edition enough to buy it if they had included these things right away. (Or maybe not, because I can't get myself that excited for tactical combat.)

Whereas DH includes social elements throughout the book, to the point that the Blade domain--probably one of the most combat-oriented domains used in the most combat-oriented classes--has the Soldier's Bond card. You say nice things to someone or ask them about themselves and you both gain Hope. I know the 4e fighter or warlord or whatever could basically point to someone and give them hp back, but the DH ability is specifically built to encourage roleplaying. And there's a whole Social adversary type, made specifically for non-combat encounters. (I have absolutely no idea how non-combat NPCs were handled in 4e.)

So while yeah, DH was definitely took heavily from 4e, it has enough social elements that people like me can really enjoy it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

OK, so I didn't play 4e, but a large part of that is because the first books made it clear (to me) it was very much a combat game. It looked like they removed nearly everything that wasn't combat-oriented. For instance: bards, (many) utility spells, good-aligned monsters. I know bards and at least some good monsters came in a later, and they probably added more social elements in later as well, but that lack turned me off enormously. I may have liked the edition enough to buy it if they had included these things right away. (Or maybe not, because I can't get myself that excited for tactical combat.)

Your impression was rather inaccurate, but I do appreciate you admitting you didn't play it and that it "looked like" these things occurred rather than claiming them as facts as people sometimes do. Bards were indeed pushed out of PHB1, it's true but not because they weren't "combat oriented" enough (AEDU and roles ensured every class was combat-competent) rather because Warlords essentially took their place - I don't think that was a good decision but it was understandable. When they were re-added, about 9 months after release, they were imho easily the best version of Bards that had existed at that point, far, far better than 2E or particularly the deeply awful 3E and 3.5E versions ("Sneak, sneak, sneak!"). I say that as someone who has played Bards extensively in every edition from 2E onwards (like, my primary class). Utility magic was alive and well, but was Rituals rather than AEDU spells, and far more accessible to more classes than in any other edition. I would actually say 4E handled utility magic far better than other editions, which have it competing with combat spells for slots, and also frequently being overpowered AND boring in the narrow uses it does have (which is a double-crime of game design). I honestly can't remember missing any 3.XE utility spells. Social elements I don't get the complaint - they literally had everything 3.XE and more, socially! They weren't added later either - they were there at launch. Hell if anything, Skill Challenges meant 4E could handle social stuff better than 3.XE's constant "Roll Diplomacy".

I know the 4e fighter or warlord or whatever could basically point to someone and give them hp back, but the DH ability is specifically built to encourage roleplaying. And there's a whole Social adversary type, made specifically for non-combat encounters. (I have absolutely no idea how non-combat NPCs were handled in 4e.)

This isn't a 4E vs DH difference - 4E is still the most similar to DH even in this particular regard - it at least has theoretically similar stuff. Whereas 1E? 2E? 3.XE? Nothing at all like that. 5E has little to none as well. What you're illustrating here is a fundamental D&D vs DH difference.

 

[overgeeked]

OK, so I didn't play 4e, but a large part of that is because the first books made it clear (to me) it was very much a combat game. It looked like they removed nearly everything that wasn't combat-oriented. For instance: bards, (many) utility spells, good-aligned monsters. I know bards and at least some good monsters came in a later, and they probably added more social elements in later as well, but that lack turned me off enormously. I may have liked the edition enough to buy it if they had included these things right away. (Or maybe not, because I can't get myself that excited for tactical combat.)

Whereas DH includes social elements throughout the book, to the point that the Blade domain--probably one of the most combat-oriented domains used in the most combat-oriented classes--has the Soldier's Bond card. You say nice things to someone or ask them about themselves and you both gain Hope. I know the 4e fighter or warlord or whatever could basically point to someone and give them hp back, but the DH ability is specifically built to encourage roleplaying. And there's a whole Social adversary type, made specifically for non-combat encounters. (I have absolutely no idea how non-combat NPCs were handled in 4e.)

So while yeah, DH was definitely took heavily from 4e, it has enough social elements that people like me can really enjoy it.

And that's one big reason why I'm loving Daggerheart. As mentioned in one of these threads, it takes the best elements from PbtA and 4E along with several other games and smashes them together quite well.

 

[Faolyn]

Your impression was very inaccurate, but I appreciate you admitting you didn't play it and that it "looked like" these things occurred rather than claiming them as facts. Bards were pushed out of PHB1 not because they weren't "combat oriented" enough but because Warlords essentially took their place - I don't think that was a good decision but it was understandable. When they were added, about 9 months after release, they were easily the best version of Bards that had existed at that point, far, far better than 2E or particularly the awful 3E and 3.5E versions ("Sneak, sneak, sneak!").

That's actually my point--they were added later.

I say that as someone who has played Bards extensively in every edition from 2E onwards. Utility magic was alive and well, but was Rituals rather than AEDU spells, and far more accessible to more classes than in any other edition. I would actually say 4E handled utility magic far better than other editions, which have it competing with combat spells for slots, and also frequently being overpowered AND boring in the narrow uses it does have (which is a double-crime of game design). Social elements I literally don't get the complaint - they had everything 3.XE and more, socially. There's not even an argument to be had there. They weren't added later either. What did you think was missing social-wise? Hell if anything, Skill Challenges meant 4E could handle social stuff better than 3.XE's constant "Roll Diplomacy".

It was little things. Like the fact the bard wasn't in the first PH. Like how they turned a delicate nature spirit (the dryad) into a tree monster. A lack of non-combat illusions. Little details like that that just turned me off. Again, I'm not saying that it was a bad game. I'm saying that it left a bad first impression on me, which didn't make me want to buy it. And since nobody I knew at the time bought it for their own reasons, I didn't get to read it.

This isn't a 4E vs DH difference - 4E is still the most similar to DH even in this particular regard - it at least has theoretically similar stuff. Whereas 1E? 2E? 3.XE? Nothing at all like that. 5E has little to none as well. What you're illustrating here is a fundamental D&D vs DH difference. And again, despite that, 4E is the most similar edition of D&D.

I presume you didn't enjoy 2E, 3.XE or 5E? Because they don't contain any of the elements you're talking about, or certainly no more than 4E did (in fact, less so).

Um. 2e (my first edition), 3x, and 5e contained all the elements I'm talking about. All three of those editions contained tons of stuff that weren't geared solely to combat encounters, as well as many very social traits. Whether or not the rules were actually good is a different matter entirely.