So about Daggerheart

[Xervous]

I haven’t seen a blip of discussion here about the Daggerheart open beta. Observing that it is definitely one of the systems of all time, I am curious what others’ thoughts are on the playtest material.

[Darth Credence]

We will be doing a playtest within the next month. I had a selection of four possibilities, my main players reviewed them, and we have selected the adventure. It's going to be an intrigue plot in the Underdark with minimal combat and hopefully a lot of roleplaying. I am currently writing it and we will schedule playing once I'm done.

We have been using the Daggerheart Nexus tool (https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/daggerheart) to create characters. It is a great tool - I would highly recommend it to anyone planning on creating a character.

As I said, we have no experience playing yet, but we do have experience with the character creation. Thus far, I am not a fan of the system, although I don't hate it. It has a long way to go to replace D&D even acknowledging all of D&D's flaws.

I like the classes - I think they've done a good job with them for the most part. The ancestries seem a little too all over the place - half are kind of normal fantasy, and half are cutesy animal species. I am worried about how experiences are going to play out - I think I will either need to be way too involved in them or some players are going to be much better at getting something out of them.

I could get into more detail, but a lot will have to wait until I have played.

[Vogie]

I want to playtest it with my group. However, I'd have to figure out how to print them all out - I just have a crappy B&W printer.

Initial lookover -

Reading over it makes me want to become an editor. It's the world's longest quickstart guide, play examples, rulebook, and DM tips thrown into a blender.
The dueling metacurrency generation is a really cool concept that seems to be applied wildly and executed poorly. Hope doesn't seem to have a ton of uses and Fear seems to be unwieldy. I had just gone over the Hollows Playtest before that (a d20 roll-under modern system based loosely on the Bloodbourne video game) which had an incredibly clever Doom & Threat mechanics which fear could have been. Also, it seems to imply that each result should be independently narrated in either direction, which sounds exhausting.
The cards for the wizard look hilariously broken compared to the rest. I don't mind them having big effects (they are wizards, after all) OR more effects, but instead they had both. If I had to give suggestions, they should redo the book multispells kinda like the Charms or Commands from Magic: the Gathering - 3 decent effects per card that have a unifying theme, with some way to occasionally choose two.
I like the myriad of free actions. It'd be broken if it were turn-based with the unlimited number of free actions, but since everybody has an arbitrarily number of actions anyway, it doesn't feel that out of sorts. It does feel like some combinations have a bunch of free actions, while other just are bereft, but that might shake out while actually sitting down and using it in practice.
Speaking of Actions, the economy needs some balancing. If I'm reading it properly, if the party is facing any target with a resistance to a damage type, those who do mainly that damage type should... not take turns. If they succeed, they'll do a pittance; if they fail, they're handing fear to the GM - and either way, they're giving the GM an Action. Having the optimum strategy for those moments be "ask your group if you can get them something from the corner store" seems wildly unfun.

[Xervous]

Shelving my more colorful commentary, my general impression of the playtest is “a thrown together apology letter for 5e D&D with improperly implemented reflections of other storytelling systems’ methods.”

Hope always being handed out is bad. With a static chance for any given roll to generate hope the game is all but telling players to only roll for stuff they are good at. Doing THING is better than not doing THING, and failure with fear is a double whammy that smells like a potential fringe % death spiral. If hope was only given out on failures and crits it would exert a damping force on the trajectory of play. Long strings of lucky rolls would naturally put the players against lots of fear without hope to help them, and runs of bad luck in the party would feed them hope to stabilize. It would also give low skill characters a reason to consider attempting a task, as they’d have a decent gamble at netting a hope.

With the turn passing to the GM on failure or fear, again we see a strong disincentive for trying anything outside your character’s specialty. “Do nothing, give the GM a chip and pass turn order for a coin flip at netting a hope? Aw bummer, failure with fear.” There’s also a fringe % positive feedback loop that can be entered if the GM lacks fear to interrupt, wherein players continuously roll successes with hope to the point that they kill some enemies and hand over so many action tokens. With a big pile of tokens, fewer monsters to activate, and no/negligible fear for interrupts, combat ends with a low ratio of monster actions taken to player tokens spent. On the other side there’s a death spiral wherein multiple failures with fear add up to a chain of uninterrupted monster actions with added nastiness.

The free for all of player action taking in combat is supremely ripe for sowing discord. Play by committee is inevitable, the value of all your possible actions isn’t just getting weighed against one another, it’s weighed against all the other characters.

Which does it want to be? A storytelling system or something a whit more tactical? “Sit down and shut up your character is a waste of actions” does not strike me as appealing for a general mode of play.

[Vahnavoi]

I know barely anything about this game, the only part that's stuck out is the attempt to disown player turns. Which seems to be what leads to Xervous's criticism above. I have no idea where this comes from or why anyone would think that's a particularly good way to do things in a tabletop roleplaying games. I would understand if they were trying to make a reflex-based or competitive game engine, but that doesn't seem to be case?

[BRC]

I know barely anything about this game, the only part that's stuck out is the attempt to disown player turns. Which seems to be what leads to Xervous's criticism above. I have no idea where this comes from or why anyone would think that's a particularly good way to do things in a tabletop roleplaying games. I would understand if they were trying to make a reflex-based or competitive game engine, but that doesn't seem to be case?

That take on action economy works from a specific perspective, and if the CR team are really the ones designing Daggerheart, or if "We want a game system that will be good to play on stream with a large group of players" is one of the primary concerns in the design space, it makes a lot of sense. Combat goes a lot faster, and is much better television, when PC's only go when they're in a position to make a major impact or do something cool, and a PC who isn't in such a position just doesn't take a turn. It's great for giving certain characters extra spotlight in a scene and not bogging things down with the entire group.

If you're viewing the system as a story generation tool, then this sort of action economy works quite well.


I don't know all the details, but I could also see it being fairly harmless in a low-pressure table. Give everybody a turn, and people are chill if their turn doesn't go well even if it would have been better for them to just not do anything.

It also works quite well if you've got a group of people experienced in improv storytelling who have a good instinct for passing focus around, or are okay with sitting back and just watching the show for a while.
(Coincidentally, it also works quite well if you have a bunch of actors who are getting paid to show up and put on a good show, rather than a bunch of people trying to have fun for it's own sake)


If my understanding is correct however, the system is disastrously bad when approached with the same strategic mindset of a D&D game, where PC's are mechanically punished for taking a turn that produces more Fear for the GM. This means the strategic pressure on the group is to have any PC's not suited for the encounter just sit out and give their actions to the ones that are.

[Xervous]

I don’t consider it remotely valuable for generating stories in its current state when compared to other offerings out there. It’s a chaotic resolution method mostly bereft of features that might otherwise encourage the pursuit of tropes, themes and relevant genre conventions. At no point is the game coming along to ask “Do you want to try stopping the villain here? It would be very hard. But if you accept that he gets away because… burning orphanage needs to be saved, you get some meta currency.” Or “here’s a setback related to your backstory. You can either buy your way past it, or accept the scene and its consequences in exchange for getting some meta currency.” It’s mostly just a loose framework for randomness that’s all too frequently held back by trying to look like 5e D&D.

Something like Blades in the Dark is of comparable complexity, but there’s room for anyone to reasonably attempt most things. Furthermore the various playbooks include some powers that work at the narrative level, directly delivering on genre conventions, to say nothing of flashbacks.

[BRC]

I don’t consider it remotely valuable for generating stories in its current state when compared to other offerings out there. It’s a chaotic resolution method mostly bereft of features that might otherwise encourage the pursuit of tropes, themes and relevant genre conventions. At no point is the game coming along to ask “Do you want to try stopping the villain here? It would be very hard. But if you accept that he gets away because… burning orphanage needs to be saved, you get some meta currency.” Or “here’s a setback related to your backstory. You can either buy your way past it, or accept the scene and its consequences in exchange for getting some meta currency.” It’s mostly just a loose framework for randomness that’s all too frequently held back by trying to look like 5e D&D.

Something like Blades in the Dark is of comparable complexity, but there’s room for anyone to reasonably attempt most things. Furthermore the various playbooks include some powers that work at the narrative level, directly delivering on genre conventions, to say nothing of flashbacks.

I can't speak to the game as a whole, just that that's the logic I see behind the action system in particular.

I don't think it's good design, at least not for anything remotely rules heavy/ including any sort of real tactical combat subgame, but I can see why somebody might think it's a good idea.

[icefractal]

I don’t consider it remotely valuable for generating stories in its current state when compared to other offerings out there. It’s a chaotic resolution method mostly bereft of features that might otherwise encourage the pursuit of tropes, themes and relevant genre conventions. At no point is the game coming along to ask “Do you want to try stopping the villain here? It would be very hard. But if you accept that he gets away because… burning orphanage needs to be saved, you get some meta currency.” Or “here’s a setback related to your backstory. You can either buy your way past it, or accept the scene and its consequences in exchange for getting some meta currency.” It’s mostly just a loose framework for randomness that’s all too frequently held back by trying to look like 5e D&D. It should be noted that in many streaming TTRPG shows, they don't go into author stance in front of the audience, so a system which encouraged or required doing so would be a bad fit. I think it does (although not uniquely, a lot of systems do this) support a style of:

1) The group collaborates between sessions on story direction, future developments, etc.
2) At the table, they primarily stick to character-stance and maintain kayfabe that any plot development is arising organically from in-game events.

[Pauly]

I had a cursory glance through the setting, characters and raced. I came away with the impression that it's basically a JAD (Just Another D&D clone). Which basically is of no interest to me. If I wanted to play something like D&D I'd play D&D.
When I want to play a fantasy RPG that's not D&D I want something that is different to D&D, and has something interesting and unique to say. Some examples of games that would interest me in committing to a campaign include
- Runequest
- Lo5R
- Conan
- WFRP
- Pendragon
- Ars Magica

I'm probably not the core target market, but I'm not interested in a different way to play D$D.

[KorvinStarmast]

I had a cursory glance through the setting, characters and raced. I came away with the impression that it's basically a JAD (Just Another D&D clone). Or as described some years ago "yet another heartbreaker"

[Anonymouswizard]

I had a cursory glance through the setting, characters and raced. I came away with the impression that it's basically a JAD (Just Another D&D clone). Which basically is of no interest to me. If I wanted to play something like D&D I'd play D&D.

Yeah, it sprung from the OGL fiasco and a desire to make sure they had a way to avoid paying licensing fees I'd they tried to pull a 4e with the next edition's licence.


Honestly I gave up at 'at level five you'll have more cards than you can fit in your loadout'. My issue isn't with cards, both Paranoia and Savage Worlds make great use of cards as a gameplay mechanic (and I hear that Deadlands goes even further than SW), but I had no clue as to what the cards did or even if they mattered and this limitation theoretically won't show up for many sessions.

[Rynjin]

I took a quick flip through the book and it read as a system specifically designed to create good moments to WATCH. From an observer's perspective (specifically the type of observer who literally cheers when a Natural 20 is rolled, and cries in anguish when a 1 comes up, which is a distressing chunk of the people who started RPGs with 5e), the Hope/Fear mechanic is really interesting, and provides an almost math-less approach to the degrees of success and failure mechanics some other systems run with.

However it seemed that in their pursuit of a game designed to create Good Content (TM) the team forgot to make a game that was actually...fun to PLAY, not just watch.

There's a lot of rules light systems on the table (Godbound, Morkborg, etc.) and I would prefer to play just about any of 'em.

[Dhavaer]

I like that there are no stats that everyone wants like Con or Dex in D&D. You have your class's attack or spellcasting stat and otherwise everything is about equally useful, so you aren't obliged to have a minimum in anything else.

[Psyren]

I'm glad this thread got made because I've been wanting to talk about this, but wasn't sure anyone was interested.

Short version: I'm probably going to hold out for MCDM and Valiant as my D&D alternative.

Longer version: I watched a couple of videos on it (e.g. Insight Check) and I have three main problems with it.

1) Ability Checks: - I strongly dislike that nearly every check you call for will need 5 outcomes defined (Critical Success, Success With Hope, Success With Fear, Failure with Hope, Failure with Fear), especially when those results procedurally generate the world, like "you failed with fear when unlocking that door, turns out it was trapped!" And yes, I know the goal is for the players and DM to better collaborate on the story, e.g. "I hope I can pick the lock, but I'm afraid the patrol will catch us while I'm fiddling with it" and now the GM can run with that suggestion depending on how they roll but... maybe I didn't want the patrol to be near them to begin with, but they don't know that. Or maybe I'm planning to have them succeed regardless of their roll, but lower rolls will impose a complication or setback of some kind. I can see DH's system being great if you like a procedurally generated world, but a handcrafted one (even if said crafting is done as much by a module author as by me) is much more my style.

2) Damage Thresholds: - I understand the point behind them, Dagger Heart wants to de-abstract HP and make them much closer to being "meat," and so they use thresholds as a way of showing that certain classes as well as certain protections (like armor) give you higher thresholds and thus more incoming damage before you have to worry about your"meat." I can definitely see what they're going for and functionally it's not that different from just having a bunch of HP to chew through (minus the godawful armor repair thing), but it still feels fiddly and I much prefer the abstraction where I get to decide what HP loss represents in the fiction for a given character.

3) Initiative: - While I disagree with the last two, I can at least see where they were coming from or what they were trying to do. This one just baffles me, largely due to all the death spirals/feedback loops/perverse incentives it creates described by e.g. Xervous and BRC. And yes, I get that it's designed primarily as a system that's more fun to watch than play but here's the thing, lots of systems are more fun to watch than play. I'd probably be able to watch the CR folks or Dimension20 play Fate or GURPS or Shadowrun or WoD and be decently entertained. That doesn't mean I'd ever have a desire to shell out for those systems, nor that I think this approach is in any way superior to regular turn-based initiative (or MCDM's "pass the baton" initiative.)

[Vahnavoi]

If you're viewing the system as a story generation tool, then this sort of action economy works quite well.

See, that doesn't seem to follow from anything. I've played a lot of story generation games, from freeform roleplaying to structured card-based games, and they almost invariably work better with clear turn order. The one positive effect you ascribe to the system - skipping over players who have nothing to contribute - is done exactly as well or better in a turn-based game by the player skipping or passing their turn.

[Actana]

I find lacking a strict turn structure works just fine for me, and while I can't say how well it'd work in Daggerheart (having not yet read the system), it has worked fine in a lot of games like Blades in the Dark, Spire, or other various Apocalypse World derivatives like Masks. In fact, I tend to prefer it these days.

[Errorname]

We're going to see a boom of games that started development during the OGL fiasco, and I think this one has a good chance of sticking around. Not because it looks particularly good or anything, but because if this is even halfway competent it's going to be able to coast on the goodwill from the recorded campaigns and cartoons that are Critical Role's actual product. This thing needs to be able to support making episodes the cast enjoy working on and not provoke major fan backlash, and if it can accomplish those two goals it basically doesn't matter how well it sells or catches on outside of Critical Role.

[Unoriginal]

We're going to see a boom of games that started development during the OGL fiasco, and I think this one has a good chance of sticking around. Not because it looks particularly good or anything, but because if this is even halfway competent it's going to be able to coast on the goodwill from the recorded campaigns and cartoons that are Critical Role's actual product. This thing needs to be able to support making episodes the cast enjoy working on and not provoke major fan backlash, and if it can accomplish those two goals it basically doesn't matter how well it sells or catches on outside of Critical Role.

Game could be the worst TTRPG ever written and there would still be a large percentage of the CR fans willing to give them money for it.

[Kardwill]

Game could be the worst TTRPG ever written and there would still be a large percentage of the CR fans willing to give them money for it.

Like most licensed games, really. "I don't know if the game is good/my style, but I'm a fan of the book/the series/the movie, so I bought it anyway" is something many of us did at some point.

[Anonymouswizard]

Like most licensed games, really. "I don't know if the game is good/my style, but I'm a fan of the book/the series/the movie, so I bought it anyway" is something many of us did at some point.

I was really disappointed by the Doctor Who RPG, I wanted essentially a sourcebook for the Whoniverse.

[Easy e]

Honestly, to me it feels a bit .... like it doesn't have a clear game design philosophy. Instead, it feels a bit Kitchen sink and trying to take a bit from a lot of modern game systems/designs while also appealing to what people like about D&D. Doing none of it that well.

The final analysis is that this is just another Fantasy Heartbreaker.

[KorvinStarmast]

Instead, it feels a bit Kitchen sink and trying to take a bit from a lot of modern game systems/designs while also appealing to what people like about D&D. Doing none of it that well.

The final analysis is that this is just another Fantasy Heartbreaker.
Great minds think alike (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25992982&postcount=11). :smallbiggrin:

While I tip my cap to Matt and the crew for how they are monetizing CR's success, I have not cared for his homebrew so I'll give this a pass as well.


Game could be the worst TTRPG ever written and there would still be a large percentage of the CR fans willing to give them money for it. It's what got me to buy Iron Crown Enterprise's / Rolemaster Middle Earth stuff back in the day.

[Psyren]

We're going to see a boom of games that started development during the OGL fiasco, and I think this one has a good chance of sticking around. Not because it looks particularly good or anything, but because if this is even halfway competent it's going to be able to coast on the goodwill from the recorded campaigns and cartoons that are Critical Role's actual product. This thing needs to be able to support making episodes the cast enjoy working on and not provoke major fan backlash, and if it can accomplish those two goals it basically doesn't matter how well it sells or catches on outside of Critical Role.

I dunno about "boom" - depending on whether you count Candela Obscura I'd say there are about 4 with halfway decent brand recognition, and they're as likely to steal market share from each other as they are from WotC.


Like most licensed games, really. "I don't know if the game is good/my style, but I'm a fan of the book/the series/the movie, so I bought it anyway" is something many of us did at some point.


I was really disappointed by the Doctor Who RPG, I wanted essentially a sourcebook for the Whoniverse.

That reminds me, I've heard good things about the Alien/Aliens Horror TTRPG.

(How the heck would a Doctor Who TTRPG work? Are the players all companions who die horribly go on fun and totally safe adventures?)

[Kardwill]

(How the heck would a Doctor Who TTRPG work? Are the players all companions who die horribly go on fun and totally safe adventures?)

That's one of the problems. The game offers some ways to dodge the issue (normal humans fumble into an abandoned TARDIS and get lost in time and space ; the Doctor disappears and the campaign will be about finding him ; UNIT/TORCHWOOD agents doing their job...) but the main playmode is that one of the players will play a completely overpowered Doctor, and the way the game tries to balance the situation (giving the Companions more hero-points so that they can get out of hairy situations and take the narrative focus) is simply not enough to compensate the way the Doctor player tends to dominate the game.

It has some nice stuff (I like the "talkers-doers-runners-fighters" initiative, the fate-like heropoint system or the fact that the lethality of combat -A Dalek will one-shot-you're-dead ANYBODY- really encourages diplomatic or creative non-fighty solutions), but on other points I find it kinda clunky and old-fashioned (I was really disappointed to find a "GM should just fudge" paragraph, instead of actual advice/rules on how to setup and run skilltests so you don't have to fudge to get out of an unwanted result)

[Rynjin]

Yeah, I did a quick glance at it when I was buying the stuff for Wrath and Glory (good game BTW, do recommend for anyone who's even vaguely into 40k) and it seemed very unappealing. Never been a big fan of when one character is the de facto main guy, even when it arises naturally.

[Anonymouswizard]

That's It has some nice stuff (I like the "talkers-doers-runners-fighters" initiative, the fate-like heropoint system or the fact that the lethality of combat -A Dalek will one-shot-you're-dead ANYBODY- really encourages diplomatic or creative non-fighty solutions), but on other points I find it kinda clunky and old-fashioned (I was really disappointed to find a "GM should just fudge" paragraph, instead of actual advice/rules on how to setup and run skilltests so you don't have to fudge to get out of an unwanted result)

Honestly the only reason I'd use the system is because I might want to run Rocket Age and anything's better than 5e.


Yeah, I did a quick glance at it when I was buying the stuff for Wrath and Glory (good game BTW, do recommend for anyone who's even vaguely into 40k)

Nah, skip it and pick up Imperium Maleficerum/Dark Heresy 3e: Not Just Inquisition instead :smallwink:

[Slipjig]

If any given combat is brief, I think the "stand back, I've got this" mechanic is fine. But I also think it might make sense to include options for players with the wrong damage type to contribute. If a character can debuff the enemy (Grapple, Shove Prone, or manipulate the environment), that's still helpful even if it's not dealing damage.

Though, not having read the rules, I'm curious: is the "can't contribute" issue because of the structure of the game, or is it because characters are built around a single gimmick that isn't relevant in this case? e.g. Is this a thing where all Fighters don't get to play, or a situation where Sword-o the Sword Guy can't contribute because doesn't do anything but Slashing damage in melee?

[Xervous]

If any given combat is brief, I think the "stand back, I've got this" mechanic is fine. But I also think it might make sense to include options for players with the wrong damage type to contribute. If a character can debuff the enemy (Grapple, Shove Prone, or manipulate the environment), that's still helpful even if it's not dealing damage.

Though, not having read the rules, I'm curious: is the "can't contribute" issue because of the structure of the game, or is it because characters are built around a single gimmick that isn't relevant in this case? e.g. Is this a thing where all Fighters don't get to play, or a situation where Sword-o the Sword Guy can't contribute because doesn't do anything but Slashing damage in melee?

In my reading the concern isn’t so much that certain characters are unable to contribute, it’s that they’re suboptimal choices for ‘who takes an action?’

The pool of options for actions spans the entire party. If you know the cleric provides the greatest contribution per action then you’re not going to have the fighter take actions until something changes to make that optimal.

[Unoriginal]

In my reading the concern isn’t so much that certain characters are unable to contribute, it’s that they’re suboptimal choices for ‘who takes an action?’

The pool of options for actions spans the entire party. If you know the cleric provides the greatest contribution per action then you’re not going to have the fighter take actions until something changes to make that optimal.

Funnily/sadly enough this would likely interact *really* badly with the CR cast members' habits and play styles.

[Rynjin]

Nah, skip it and pick up Imperium Maleficerum/Dark Heresy 3e: Not Just Inquisition instead :smallwink:

I was never a big fan of Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, etc. Too much fiddly bull**** involved with making your characters, and too limited at the same time.

It's as complicated to build a character in it as Mutants and Masterminds but nowhere near as rewarding. And it mostly comes from how awfully implemented the Aptitudes system is.

[icefractal]

I think it (the initiative system) would work ok if all of the below applied:
1) The group's not playing in a challenge-oriented style, so significantly suboptimal moves are fine.
2) The players are already engaging in spotlight management.
3) All related OOC issues like shyness, attention-hogging, disagreement on style, etc have been resolved.

Not really what I'm looking for from initiative regardless. But for a more "making a satisfying story is a priority" group, I could see the advantage.

For example, consider the situation of:
It's the final confrontation with Baron von Jerkwad. While the whole party is against him at this point, his original nemesis and the one with the most grudge is Sir Plus, one of the PCs. Sir Plus has just taken his turn recently, and the Baron is at very low HP, which means it's almost certain someone else will land the final blow. Your options are:
A) Someone else lands the final blow; it is what it is.
B) GM fudges the Baron's HP to keep him alive until Sir Plus can land the hit.
C) Rest of the party inexplicably decides to stall until Sir Plus's turn.

Personally, I'd just say "Option A, what's the issue?" because I'm not that story-oriented and find too-obvious narrative convenience a turn-off. But if the group does want the cinematic ending, they've got two not-great options. This kind of initiative system would give them a third and better option.

[Anonymouswizard]

I was never a big fan of Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, etc. Too much fiddly bull**** involved with making your characters, and too limited at the same time.

It's as complicated to build a character in it as Mutants and Masterminds but nowhere near as rewarding. And it mostly comes from how awfully implemented the Aptitudes system is.

While WFRP4e cleaned up some of the fiddly bits, yeah that's a valid criticism. I just think that Wrath & Glory focuses on the boring parts of the setting, who wants to be a Space Marine and spend all your time being a symbol?

A friend and I have both spent time trying to work out the ideal system for a Rogue Trader (as in the 1980s version of the setting) game. Still not found anything ideal.

[Darth Credence]

I think it (the initiative system) would work ok if all of the below applied:
1) The group's not playing in a challenge-oriented style, so significantly suboptimal moves are fine.
2) The players are already engaging in spotlight management.
3) All related OOC issues like shyness, attention-hogging, disagreement on style, etc have been resolved.

Not really what I'm looking for from initiative regardless. But for a more "making a satisfying story is a priority" group, I could see the advantage.

For example, consider the situation of:
It's the final confrontation with Baron von Jerkwad. While the whole party is against him at this point, his original nemesis and the one with the most grudge is Sir Plus, one of the PCs. Sir Plus has just taken his turn recently, and the Baron is at very low HP, which means it's almost certain someone else will land the final blow. Your options are:
A) Someone else lands the final blow; it is what it is.
B) GM fudges the Baron's HP to keep him alive until Sir Plus can land the hit.
C) Rest of the party inexplicably decides to stall until Sir Plus's turn.

Personally, I'd just say "Option A, what's the issue?" because I'm not that story-oriented and find too-obvious narrative convenience a turn-off. But if the group does want the cinematic ending, they've got two not-great options. This kind of initiative system would give them a third and better option.

or, D) The person who would knock him down does so, but the DM doesn't have him immediately die - instead, the DM describes him as bleeding on the ground, attempting to crawl away, with combat over. Sir Plus now has the opportunity to give a speech or whatever about the whole thing and deliver a coup de grace.

[Rynjin]

While WFRP4e cleaned up some of the fiddly bits, yeah that's a valid criticism. I just think that Wrath & Glory focuses on the boring parts of the setting, who wants to be a Space Marine and spend all your time being a symbol?

A friend and I have both spent time trying to work out the ideal system for a Rogue Trader (as in the 1980s version of the setting) game. Still not found anything ideal.

I've played three games of W&G and never touched being a Space Marine. We've done a pair of tier 2 games; one where I played an Electro-Priest in a Rogue Trader's retinue (the RT being another player in this case), and another as a Psyker from a recently integrated planet that was ruled by Witch-Kings, now rolled into the employ of an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor. As their hierarchy was based on the most powerful Psykers being in charge, when she was taken to Terra she immediately fell in line with the Imperial Cult, as OBVIOUSLy the Emperor is in charge; he's the biggest Psyker ever. May the Psy-Emperor protect.

I've also played in a T3 game (which is where Space Marines really become available in the first place) where I was a Harlequin doing wetwork for a mixed-race enclave of outcasts (think a melting pot of Farsight Enclave and Aledari/Drukhari Corsairs, Ork mercs, etc.).

The game system does not in particular focus on one facet more than the others save that there is a lot more published material based around playing people from the Imperium than the xeno races. But even then, Tech-Priests , the Guard, and the Ecclesiarchy all get more focus than Spess Mahreens. The new Aeldari/Drukhari/Harlequins book is good, and I'm hoping for a T'au one soon.

[Anonymouswizard]

I've played three games of W&G and never touched being a Space Marine. We've done a pair of tier 2 games; one where I played an Electro-Priest in a Rogue Trader's retinue (the RT being another player in this case), and another as a Psyker from a recently integrated planet that was ruled by Witch-Kings, now rolled into the employ of an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor. As their hierarchy was based on the most powerful Psykers being in charge, when she was taken to Terra she immediately fell in line with the Imperial Cult, as OBVIOUSLy the Emperor is in charge; he's the biggest Psyker ever. May the Psy-Emperor protect.

I've also played in a T3 game (which is where Space Marines really become available in the first place) where I was a Harlequin doing wetwork for a mixed-race enclave of outcasts (think a melting pot of Farsight Enclave and Aledari/Drukhari Corsairs, Ork mercs, etc.).

The game system does not in particular focus on one facet more than the others save that there is a lot more published material based around playing people from the Imperium than the xeno races. But even then, Tech-Priests , the Guard, and the Ecclesiarchy all get more focus than Spess Mahreens. The new Aeldari/Drukhari/Harlequins book is good, and I'm hoping for a T'au one soon.

Okay, my three big problems are:
1) it focuses far too much on 'play your favourite model', with a big focus on iconic unit types I couldn't care less for. Hence 'too much focus on Space Marines'.
2) it's far too broad, Space Marines and normal humans should not be in the same party. Especially as the Marines get outcompeted by humans in their area of expertise.
3) it claims to be rules light, but is just as heavy as the old games were.

[Pauly]

A friend and I have both spent time trying to work out the ideal system for a Rogue Trader (as in the 1980s version of the setting) game. Still not found anything ideal.

Have you tried Traveller?
It does the whole fly through space and have adventures with interesting aliens as well as anything. The biggest issue thematically as I see it is the resolution system is very different to Don Featherstone’s “buckets of dice” resolution system from the 1960s (roll to hit, roll to wound, roll armour save using D6s) that GW stole.

The main problem logistically appears to be converting all the stat blocks from 40K to Traveller.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I've had a blast with it. Reading it before running I found 2 things I saw issue with, I've found the answer to both of those. I've also seen an issue come up in this thread and others that I think stems less from this game's design and more for pre-conceived assumptions about a game that come from D&D and other sources.

1) Initiative: This seems unwieldy, but Spotlight hogging and newer group dynamics should be something a GM can handle. Shyness is harder, but they already added the optional rule where everyone gets 3 action tokens to use which ensures no one gets left behind. Honestly, the dynamic of NOT having PCs have to change plans or delay their turn just because of a single roll at the start of combat is a lovely thing.

2) Wealth: I was already doing this in my 5E campaigns. Real life is dominated by amassing and budgeting wealth, I hate it. My games don't worry about that. In 5E I just constantly made my PCs rich in one level or another so it wasn't an issue, but this is much simpler. So long as the players have any wealth things like ordering food, getting a room at an inn, tipping someone, restocking basic supplies. You just do it. And the more abstract level of wealth supports major purchases. You need to buy a new sword because you lost yours. Yep, you got a sword now. You want to buy a specific magical sword that's displayed in the Blacksmith's shop? That'll take a Bag of Gold. And for those who hated the full abstract, it's already been updated. You have individual coins, then handfuls, then bags now.

3) Resource management and too much rolling. Saw this here and elsewhere, the idea that the game encourages constant rolling to stockpile Hope or over do skill checks. Or inversely, a fear of rolling because a Fear roll gievs the GM more power. Both of these stem from the idea that everything is worth a roll. It's not.

In 5e a rogue has to roll to open a lock, even if it's a DC10 lock and they have a +18 to the roll... That's not DaggerHeart. If there's no time constraint or worry about being caught a rogue picking a lock... Picks the lock, no roll needed. As a similar example, I saw someone saying they had a Druid who wanted to just RP talking with some animals (Nature's Tongue) But decided not too because it was just fluff and they didn't want to risk fear. Well... The ability only calls for a roll if you are trying to get information out of them. If you just want to RP fluff and not try to get anything the GM wouldn't just willingly give you? Cool, no roll.

3a) The idea of having to have 5 results for every possible scenario both ignores what I discussed above and ignores that the game assumes a roll exists only when it moves the narrative forward. Let's go to a more complex version of that lock scenario.

The Part is in the BBEG's lair, they've stealthed in to steal a magical artifact that is key to the BBEG's plot and to Victory for the PCs if they can get it. The Rogue attempts to pick the lock.

In DaggerHeart:
-Critical Success: The Door Opens, the room is empty and you can see the artifact lying on a table.
-Hope Success: The Door Opens, the room is empty, you don't see the artifact and will need to look for it.
-Fear Success: The Door Opens, you see the BBEG in their bed, asleep. You don't see the artifact.
-Hope Failure: The Door opens, you see the BBEG looking down at the artifact on a table. They turn, see you, and rush forward.
-Fear Failure: The Door opens, the BBEG is waiting, snatches the rogue and yanks them in, slamming the door on the rest of the party.

No matter what the result the Story moves forward, the PCs are moving towards their goal. The best roll gives them exactly what they want and they could then sneak back out. Hope Success means they have to search, probably causing another roll, Fear Success puts them in danger but they're still ahead. Hope Failure starts a standard boss encounter, Fear Failure splits the party.

In 5E it might seem simpler, Failure and the lock doesn't open, success and it does. But there's two issues there.
On a failure the game just stalls. The PCs will likely just try again and it just eats time. Meanwhile on a success the DM will have needed to essentially think through all the details about the BBEG and the Artifact resulting in those other four options above regardless.

In general, I've found the game great, Magic users aren't constantly running out of magic unless you play very weirdly, everyone's useful and the dynamics allow actual group effort.

As a last aside, I've noticed some comments about needing to print it all out.. While the game is designed with "Cards" It doesn't need them to be actual cards. You can honestly just treat them as prepared abilities and write them down.

[Unoriginal]

In 5e a rogue has to roll to open a lock, even if it's a DC10 lock and they have a +18 to the roll...

100% incorrect.

In 5e, not only you only roll if there is a chance of failure and a chance of success, but you only roll if there are interesting consequences for failure.



If there's no time constraint or worry about being caught a rogue picking a lock... Picks the lock, no roll needed.

That's straight out of 5e (provided the Rogue has the capacity to pick the lock in the first place).

[JNAProductions]

Also, there's no automatic failures for saves or checks in 5E-only attack rolls.

Roll a 1 with your +17 bonus to pick a lock? Anything DC 18 or less is picked.
Got a Paladin rocking +16 to their Charisma saves? DC 17 Banishment can't affect them.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

100% incorrect.

In 5e, not only you only roll if there is a chance of failure and a chance of success, but you only roll if there are interesting consequences for failure.

I am in error, forgot the Nat 1's only apply to attacks, I blame BG3 glitching into my mind.

Cool. So can dismiss that specific point, thankfully it wasn't integral to the points I was making.

[Xervous]

It’s not simply that the system allows for spotlight hogging, it’s that the system encourages and rewards role based spotlight hogging.

Hope/Fear as stated before encourages the party to only roll when they are able to put forward the best character for the job. When actions are a limiting factor, you still get an effective turn order due to action priority. Whoever has the best options will act, and act continuously until their actions are expended. There are no incentives to let someone else try a roll on a lower %, success rate adjusted magnitude of impact is the only thing in the equation.

It’s a shoddy apology letter for an already slapdash system, and I’ve already spent all my mirth in observing that Daggerheart has been meeting my expectations for quality and coherency.

Evidently a good GM can weave a compelling campaign around a lackluster system, but that only speaks favorably of the GM.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

It’s not simply that the system allows for spotlight hogging, it’s that the system encourages and rewards role based spotlight hogging.

Hope/Fear as stated before encourages the party to only roll when they are able to put forward the best character for the job. When actions are a limiting factor, you still get an effective turn order due to action priority. Whoever has the best options will act, and act continuously until their actions are expended. There are no incentives to let someone else try a roll on a lower %, success rate adjusted magnitude of impact is the only thing in the equation.

That speaks more to your playstyle than the system weakness. Since the game isn't a PCs vs GM or PCs trying to "Win" there's not a reason for that.

Just a casual example from my very first playtest. One of my PCs was playing a Giant Guardian. Rushed in, did a hope to do a whirlwind and hit multiple targets. According to your logic the Giant should just keep swinging, after all, they're the best to do damage. Except instead without prompting or issue another player described sliding underneath the Giant's arc to make another attack against one of the monsters behind them. They did less damage but was still useful to the group and fun.

Sorry, if you want pure optimization, go for it, but I've never found RPGs particularly good for that.

I'm also genuinely confused by the idea that earning Hope/Fear pushes any type of skill preference. You have the same chances of rolling Hope or Fear on literally anything unless you have a mechanic that lets you tip a dice... Combine that with the fact that rolls shouldn't be happening outside of combat and when they matter, and the 6 point cap on the resource, I just don't see this min maxing everyone's talking about.

[Xervous]

That speaks more to your playstyle than the system weakness. Since the game isn't a PCs vs GM or PCs trying to "Win" there's not a reason for that.

Just a casual example from my very first playtest. One of my PCs was playing a Giant Guardian. Rushed in, did a hope to do a whirlwind and hit multiple targets. According to your logic the Giant should just keep swinging, after all, they're the best to do damage. Except instead without prompting or issue another player described sliding underneath the Giant's arc to make another attack against one of the monsters behind them. They did less damage but was still useful to the group and fun.

Sorry, if you want pure optimization, go for it, but I've never found RPGs particularly good for that.

I'm also genuinely confused by the idea that earning Hope/Fear pushes any type of skill preference. You have the same chances of rolling Hope or Fear on literally anything unless you have a mechanic that lets you tip a dice... Combine that with the fact that rolls shouldn't be happening outside of combat and when they matter, and the 6 point cap on the resource, I just don't see this min maxing everyone's talking about.

You have correctly observed that there is nothing that changes the distribution of Hope/Fear awards. The system has repeatedly been contrasted with actual, functional systems which grant players meta currency on failure to add depth and decision making to attempted actions of import. You have your success rate which always yields something desired, and the accompanying failure rate which yields an undesired and frequently (50% of all failures are with fear) levies additional bad stuff on the character or party.

Looking at the playtest we immediately see “failure with fear, party takes 1 stress”, “failure, enemies get surprise”. A proper storytelling system would have structures that encourage interacting with these possibilities by putting forth a character to roll their non optimal score. As the system is written these failures are simply pure negatives, with no desirable plan of interaction besides avoidance.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

You have correctly observed that there is nothing that changes the distribution of Hope/Fear awards. The system has repeatedly been contrasted with actual, functional systems which grant players meta currency on failure to add depth and decision making to attempted actions of import. You have your success rate which always yields something desired, and the accompanying failure rate which yields an undesired and frequently (50% of all failures are with fear) levies additional bad stuff on the character or party.

Still not seeing why this "Pushes" anyone to make one roll or another. And again, the system isn't designed for players to look for rolls, the rolls are meant to advance things.


Looking at the playtest we immediately see “failure with fear, party takes 1 stress”, “failure, enemies get surprise”. A proper storytelling system would have structures that encourage interacting with these possibilities by putting forth a character to roll their non optimal score. As the system is written these failures are simply pure negatives, with no desirable plan of interaction besides avoidance.

I mean, looking at the Playtest Manuscript here I see the term "Failure with Fear" come up 10 times.

4 is the generic descriptions of or suggestions for what's going on when this happens.
2 are very vague examples of there might be more guards, or a door is warded, etc
1 is a Combat example having a GM take an action instead of gaining a Fear.
1 is another Combat example with the GM using a big attack from an adversary.
1 is how it relates to a Dynamic Countdown.
1 in an ability of a specific creature to sap Hope when a PC rolls Fear.

I don't see anything about Failure with Fear the whole party takes stress, or Failure, enemies get surprise. The first seems excessive and the second isn't a result of a roll, it's a mechanic costing Fear points from the GM.

[Xervous]

Still not seeing why this "Pushes" anyone to make one roll or another. And again, the system isn't designed for players to look for rolls, the rolls are meant to advance things.



I mean, looking at the Playtest Manuscript here I see the term "Failure with Fear" come up 10 times.

4 is the generic descriptions of or suggestions for what's going on when this happens.
2 are very vague examples of there might be more guards, or a door is warded, etc
1 is a Combat example having a GM take an action instead of gaining a Fear.
1 is another Combat example with the GM using a big attack from an adversary.
1 is how it relates to a Dynamic Countdown.
1 in an ability of a specific creature to sap Hope when a PC rolls Fear.

I don't see anything about Failure with Fear the whole party takes stress, or Failure, enemies get surprise. The first seems excessive and the second isn't a result of a roll, it's a mechanic costing Fear points from the GM.

Grabbed the latest packet, looks like they tweaked minor wording on the interaction. Only affects the interacting PC, good catch on that.

P29: interacting with the strixwolf. Nothing notable results from success. Crit success removes a stress, meanwhile:


[Failure] If the roll was with Fear, things go badly. Describe the strix-wolf snarling at the PC. Tell them to mark a Stress.

P30: Ambushed!


When the moment feels right, or one of the above scenarios triggers it, ask a PC who seems like they are paying attention to their surroundings to make an Instinct Roll with a difficulty of 14.
On a success, they notice eyes watching them from the darkness beyond the trail. If it was with Fear, the PC marks a Stress. Use the “See Them Coming” prompts.
On a failure, they are immediately ambushed. If it was with Fear, the PC marks a Stress. Use the “Ambushed!” prompts

One player rolls to determine if the whole party is surprised. The ambushing thistlefolk get free actions in this case. Notably, their initial attack during the ambush is stronger than their default, coming in at 2d8+4 rather than the typical 2d8+1. The perceptive PC marks a stress on fear regardless, but we’re here to look at the absence of incentives for less perceptive characters to be taking point.

Matching highest stat to appropriate task is entry level gaming, it’s not a decision to be weighed and it certainly fails to pose any interesting storytelling questions. The party continues the adventuring day while they have resources, getting ambushed depletes additional resources. There is no incentive for the party to allow the ambush even if that’s the best path for the story to take. As it’s set up and presented, the players are encouraged to strive to avoid or overwhelm every obstacle the GM presents, to never put themselves in a vulnerable state, to play the system like a war game rather than a structure for developing narrative arcs.



Looking through the lens of Fate, Blades in the Dark, and Daggerheart does anyone want to volunteer some answers to a hypothetical?

The party is at a festival and expects there to be an attempt on the mayor’s life. There’s high quality booze on offer, which one PC really likes. Drinking will debilitate the PC and thus disadvantage the party, but the PC has a drinking problem. How does the system encourage the player to engage with the fiction of the PC’s addiction?

[Anonymouswizard]

Looking through the lens of Fate, Blades in the Dark, and Daggerheart does anyone want to volunteer some answers to a hypothetical?

The party is at a festival and expects there to be an attempt on the mayor’s life. There’s high quality booze on offer, which one PC really likes. Drinking will debilitate the PC and thus disadvantage the party, but the PC has a drinking problem. How does the system encourage the player to engage with the fiction of the PC’s addiction?

In Fate it depends on if it's important enough to tie into an Aspect. If it is this is a fairly clear Compel, potentially multiple but that's less fun. So depending on the PC it might be one of:
-you're out of position getting a drink, damn your luck
-you're too sloshed to be doing your job and [setback] happens, damn your luck
-you're trousered, cause a scene, and get hauled off to the drunk tank, damn your luck
-you're distracted by the drink and don't notice [important thing], damn your luck

If the player accepts they get a shiny Fate Point they can use later, but if they reject the development they have to fork over a Fate Point.

For FitD I'm not sure this situation would be covered by the mechanics, but best is probably a Resistance roll to avoid a setback if the player refuses to play along (which means the PC likely accumulates Stress).

In PbtA your playbook probably deals with addiction, so you'll have Movies which give shinies (most likely XP or Strings/Hx, but maybe other stuff) for indulging in it. If your playbook doesn't than the game doesn't consider it relevant, at worst you're a functional drink in this scenario.

[Kardwill]

In Fate it depends on if it's important enough to tie into an Aspect. If it is this is a fairly clear Compel, potentially multiple but that's less fun. So depending on the PC it might be one of:
-you're out of position getting a drink, damn your luck
-you're too sloshed to be doing your job and [setback] happens, damn your luck
-you're trousered, cause a scene, and get hauled off to the drunk tank, damn your luck
-you're distracted by the drink and don't notice , damn your luck

If the player accepts they get a shiny Fate Point they can use later, but if they reject the development they have to fork over a Fate Point.


@Xervous : Note that the compel can be initiated by the GM or by the player
Player : "Since I have "a weakness for strong drinks and stronger women", I probably wander off to the bar." (taps his aspect on his character sheet)
GM : "And completely forget about the Ambassador you've been hired to protect?"
Player : "Yup."
GM : "Okay, no reason anything would happen to him in such a crowded place, right? Well, until you hear a very loud argument" (grins and gives a fate token)
My "[I]weakness for strong drinks" won't actually be a problem, but just a background element, if the GM doesn't compel it, or if I repel the compel by saying "nah, I'm pleasantly buzzed and it may look like I'm badly out of position, but I'm still keeping an eye on the room and checking anyone approaching Ambassador Fancypants."

Also note that it will only be a compel if it actually gets the character into trouble. My "Uncouth barbarian" is uncouth and rude all the time without real consequence ingame, but it becomes a compel when the baron takes offense (and if I repel the compel, maybe my character had enough sense to avoid making a scene, or maybe the Baron decided to laugh it off because it was "refreshingly direct" ^^)

[Ignimortis]

Skimmed through the rules. Doesn't seem to do anything I'd be a fan of, even if coming from D&D 5e.

The main resolution mechanic is already super wonky, because if you roll for something, say, DC15, with a +2 modifier, so a 50% chance in a straightforward resolution system, Daggerheart instead proffers five outcomes, three of which are frankly negative, and add up to about 69% of an outcome you don't want (success with fear or any kind of failure are all described in examples in a way that makes it clear you're generally in a worse position than you were in before). This smacks of heavy-handed narrative game which thinks that the only way to make things interesting is to have PCs fail or succeed at a major cost more often than having them succeed normally. Personally, such mechanics make me feel like I'm playing an incompetent who survives mostly by luck, rather than a specialist for whom complications arise from events fully beyond their control.

Initiative "by committee" would leave most tables in shambles. It's already a mess with delaying initiative so that you can possibly take advantage of the slower player's buffs, but now you have to determine whose turn would be the best right now. This also resembles FATE in a way, but while FATE doesn't really put that much focus on combat and generally makes it somewhat clear that playing it requires group cohesion beyond the tactical level (i.e. you all gotta know pretty well what you want to play, and going (broad genre name) isn't gonna cut it, you need consistent tone and shared expectations), Daggerheart seems to be an attempt to mix FATE elements into what is primarily a D&D-adjacent adventure structure game.

Basically, first impressions: rather poor. I'd still rather play 5e over Daggerheart, and I don't even like 5e. At best, this will be a niche game for CR fans who will buy it and maybe play it once in a while. At worst, this'll be a cashgrab that won't establish any real presence.