I think it'd be surprisingly similar to D&D in that characters with magical and social abilities are likely to be wildly more useful and engaged than ones without those. Experiences will factor in a bit of course, and the dominant factor will likely be how engaged the players (not PCs) are, as is the case in most games.Would Daggerheart make things notably worse? Probably not.
I mean, I don't see how that's what you're describing, particularly "intent"-wise but...Using the rules that the game presents you with in ways that are entirely in line with the intent of the rules for a result that takes minimal effort and is significantly better than handwaving is the literal opposite of fighting the rules.
Seems like it would be hard to give "serious penalties" for wearing a gambeson (which literally gives you a bonus to Evasion, so presumably cannot be cumbersome) without seeming vindictive. And I notice that even unarmoured "social" NPCs have damage thresholds like they're wearing light armour, absolutely consistently. Not a single one of them has damage thresholds which suggest that they're actually unarmoured. It'd be a bizarre double-standard to say NPCs get to have armoured thresholds but PCs only get to have their level. (NB all NPC damage thresholds are lower than PCs in equivalent armour, but that's intended to the math of the game.)with serious penalties for wearing armour for serious tension.
I'm going to disagree that the difference is wild here. Your Hope is a limited resource - and from Tier 2 onwards those without magical abilities can normally devote a single tick to get two experiences up to +3 and they are right there in the game while those with magic tend to spend it on that. It's like the difference between 3.5 and 4e in terms of the engagement of non-casters. Also there is always the help action. The gap is nowhere near as extreme as 5e.I think it'd be surprisingly similar to D&D in that characters with magical and social abilities are likely to be wildly more useful and engaged than ones without those.
"You're not allowed in the room if you're wearing armour".Seems like it would be hard to give "serious penalties" for wearing a gambeson
Maybe, we'll see if I run a mystery at some point.The gap is nowhere near as extreme as 5e.
An awful lot of magic doesn't require Hope or Stress though, or is relatively socially/practically powerful for the 1 it does. Certainly more powerful than +2 to a roll would be. Druids I suspect will be very useful.Your Hope is a limited resource
You can do that, but it doesn't seem to be intended, because it will make the PCs weaker than less-armoured NPCs damage threshold-wise, which is not at all how the monsters are intended to be balanced. It also potentially conflicts with the fact that PCs are supposed to be able to reflavour armour significantly, which include into forms of armour which were not easily detected in some cases."You're not allowed in the room if you're wearing armour".
I'm not sure how right you are here - more accurately you need to hit the numbers. Druids will be useful but the gap between a druid and a warrior will be significantly less than between e.g. a 5e druid and a 5e fighter.An awful lot of magic doesn't require Hope or Stress though, or is relatively socially/practically powerful for the 1 it does. Certainly more powerful than +2 to a roll would be. Druids I suspect will be very useful.
And in these situations there isn't supposed to be a normal fight. You are literally saying "You should never put the PCs in a tough spot".You can do that, but it doesn't seem to be intended, because it will make the PCs weaker than less-armoured NPCs damage threshold-wise, which is not at all how the monsters are intended to be balanced.
Obviously I'm not saying that, least of all literally, so why claim I am? All you're doing is undermining your own position by casting yourself as someone not engaging in good faith.And in these situations there isn't supposed to be a normal fight. You are literally saying "You should never put the PCs in a tough spot".
Again, the point isn't that you can't do these thing in DH. The question is why bother when you can use a system designed for them?As @Campbell noted, you can run something that looks like mysteries very well in a fiction-first game using a set of procedures I don't think DH would struggle to support. If you can do it in FITD (Bump in the Dark is a "better in basically every way" version of Monster of the Week, using a version of the Brindlewood Bay clue system ported over), you can do it here.
If you wanted to really lean into horror and vulnerability, I think you'd need to think a little bit about the Hope and Stress economy. Maybe do more restricted resting like Age of Umbra introduces with "bonfires," so you can't buffer Hope or Stress without some effort. Maybe use more countdowns of pursuit or tick up a crushing darkness thing or whatever. Maybe lean into some more monsters of shadow or something that deal Direct damage, or consistently have Fear abilities that deal direct damage (or again do it off Light or consumable resources - perhaps they need to spend Hope to fuel some sort of beacon during clashes?).
It would take thought and intention if you wanted to, but I think the interaction of resources and fiction gives you some space to play with if you really want it. Oh, and player buy in.
I think for the same reason I've seen games in nearly every genre for 5E: it's what people are comfortable with. Back in the 3.0 era, there was this terrible book called Foundation, which was purported to be a super hero game using the 3E rules. That's the benchmark I use for the worst RPG supplement I've ever seen.Again, the point isn't that you can't do these thing in DH. The question is why bother when you can use a system designed for them?