Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9317535" data-attributes="member: 4937">Hmmm... Ok.&nbsp; Not really seeing that one way or the other.&nbsp; What I am seeing that I kind of like is that the game is trying to define what &quot;with consequences&quot; means in the general case, which is really nice.As an aside, on the originally topic, Fear is definitely a narrative currency but the overall feel here to me is &quot;informed by nar but not actually nar&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sure, it's got a functional sort of fail forward thing going that is very modern, but that's not really 'nar' just an aesthetic choice.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's the sort of design that is designed to fulfill multiple agendas that in the abstract I consider good design and RE back in the day would have invented disparaging terms for.&nbsp; That said, while I like &quot;fulfills multiple agendas/aesthetics of play&quot; in the abstract, I'm always skeptical of systems that empower the GM to improvise on every dang roll AND also don't pass narrative authority.&nbsp; (Passing moves around isn't the same thing.) I see that so often in modern design and feel that's more likely to create dysfunctional play than a more purist sort of system would.&nbsp;&nbsp; A lot of the text reads like Monte Cook's Numenera with maybe a bit more interesting and robust fortune mechanic.&nbsp;&nbsp; I do really like the group action mechanic though, as that so simplifies certain types of scenes from a GMing perspective.All that being said, Daggerheart very much reminds me of so much I see in modern tRPG design and publications where it is not actually doing any heavy lifting for me.&nbsp; There is this scene in Gaimen's &quot;Sandman&quot; comics where Dream curses a victim to having ideas, and the victim begins spouting hundreds of ideas.&nbsp; And in the commentary on the comics Gaimen talked about how &quot;penny for your thoughts&quot; was actually an unreasonably high rate because most thoughts aren't even worth that much.&nbsp; Ideas are cheap.&nbsp; Inspiration is everywhere.&nbsp; Creativity in and of itself isn't worth much.&nbsp;&nbsp; All the real value is in the effort of turning the ideas in something useful and concrete.&nbsp; Daggerheart to me and almost all modern RPGs and RPG supplements feel Dreams curse of useless ideas, worth little unless a GM puts in all the valuable effort to actually make something of them.&nbsp; I'd play Daggerheart but nothing is making me want to run it, and I think it's a game that favors really expert GMs.&nbsp; To run this sort of thing, you really have to be able to thrive in the chaos and have a pretty relaxed, functional, extroverted(!), and high skill party.&nbsp; It feels like it is going to work for Matt Mercer, and making moves means Mercer gets a lot of GM spotlight, but well, I'm not convinced that this is going to be a ton of fun for your average group.tl;dr: &quot;Is Daggerheart a nar game?&quot; It's complicated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9317535, member: 4937"] Hmmm... Ok. Not really seeing that one way or the other. What I am seeing that I kind of like is that the game is trying to define what "with consequences" means in the general case, which is really nice. As an aside, on the originally topic, Fear is definitely a narrative currency but the overall feel here to me is "informed by nar but not actually nar". Sure, it's got a functional sort of fail forward thing going that is very modern, but that's not really 'nar' just an aesthetic choice. It's the sort of design that is designed to fulfill multiple agendas that in the abstract I consider good design and RE back in the day would have invented disparaging terms for. That said, while I like "fulfills multiple agendas/aesthetics of play" in the abstract, I'm always skeptical of systems that empower the GM to improvise on every dang roll AND also don't pass narrative authority. (Passing moves around isn't the same thing.) I see that so often in modern design and feel that's more likely to create dysfunctional play than a more purist sort of system would. A lot of the text reads like Monte Cook's Numenera with maybe a bit more interesting and robust fortune mechanic. I do really like the group action mechanic though, as that so simplifies certain types of scenes from a GMing perspective. All that being said, Daggerheart very much reminds me of so much I see in modern tRPG design and publications where it is not actually doing any heavy lifting for me. There is this scene in Gaimen's "Sandman" comics where Dream curses a victim to having ideas, and the victim begins spouting hundreds of ideas. And in the commentary on the comics Gaimen talked about how "penny for your thoughts" was actually an unreasonably high rate because most thoughts aren't even worth that much. Ideas are cheap. Inspiration is everywhere. Creativity in and of itself isn't worth much. All the real value is in the effort of turning the ideas in something useful and concrete. Daggerheart to me and almost all modern RPGs and RPG supplements feel Dreams curse of useless ideas, worth little unless a GM puts in all the valuable effort to actually make something of them. I'd play Daggerheart but nothing is making me want to run it, and I think it's a game that favors really expert GMs. To run this sort of thing, you really have to be able to thrive in the chaos and have a pretty relaxed, functional, extroverted(!), and high skill party. It feels like it is going to work for Matt Mercer, and making moves means Mercer gets a lot of GM spotlight, but well, I'm not convinced that this is going to be a ton of fun for your average group. tl;dr: "Is Daggerheart a nar game?" It's complicated. [/QUOTE]

Verification