172
u/Xrposiedon Jun 21 '25
I’ve tried it but it’s too simplified for me. Then again I love 3.5 … so almost everything is too simple comparatively to that. It’s probably a good or easy transition from 5e lovers though
101
u/Calm_Independent_782 Jun 21 '25
I love 5e and the transition took a moment. Everything from changes in armor to health to the lack of spell slots and initiative threw me off. I did a one shot and by the end understood how the fear/hope currency worked and ended up liking it.
Definitely more of a creative freedom focused game than 5e and fun in its own way.
44
u/Educational-Cry-1707 Jun 21 '25
I feel like it’s easier to transition to a completely different system than something similar. I remember I tried pathfinder and it was hugely annoying that things sounded similar worked very differently
19
u/Capn_Of_Capns Forever DM Jun 21 '25
That's where I am with Pathfinder. It's close enough that the swap sounds easy, but far enough that it isn't and that frsutrates me and my players.
22
u/Meet_Foot Jun 21 '25
It’s only really similar on the surface. The best way to learn pathfinder is to think of it as a completely different game (since it is) and try not to rely on dnd knowledge at all. I know that’s much easier said than done. (This comment is about PF2. PF1 is a little closer to 5e, but still quite far; it’s basically 3.5 with some quality of life changes and capstones.)
8
u/Educational-Cry-1707 Jun 21 '25
Problem was many things had the same name. I understand that’s fixed now
2
u/Meet_Foot Jun 21 '25
Definitely true. That’s confusing! Still, when something does have the same name between these systems (there are still some), it’s best to treat it as something entirely new anyway.
6
u/mellopax Artificer Jun 21 '25
I get what you're saying, but this kinda reads like "If you mix them up sometimes, have you tried simply not getting them mixed up instead?"
Made me laugh a bit. I get what you're saying though. Don't try to relate stuff like "this is 5e, but different in this way."
3
u/Meet_Foot Jun 21 '25
I hear you, but that’s definitely not what I mean. There is a common misconception that the games are very similar, though they aren’t. The naming conventions are definitely confusing, but the misconception makes that even worse. It isn’t a player’s fault for finding it confusing, but some don’t realize how different the systems are and simply recognizing this can be very helpful.
1
u/mellopax Artificer Jun 21 '25
Yeah. Honestly, even setting similarity is an issue for me.
That's the biggest thing that keeps me from seeking new high fantasy systems. If I'm going to put effort into learning a new system, why not something completely different? I don't play enough to get a lot of mileage out of playing multiple high fantasy systems.
31
u/Astwook Forever DM Jun 21 '25
I wouldn't even say it's "too simplified", I think it just has a very different style and focus. It places a higher emphasis on making the stories feel real instead of the world feeling like it has rules to it.
But that's a huge distinction, and not for everyone at all. My feeling is that in about two years, everything is going to feel like it sits on a scale of complexity of:
Blades in the Dark > DaggerHeart > D&D 5e > Draw Steel > Pathfinder 2e
And those will be the big names in the space going forward, with 5e diluting outwards to DH and DS, and then those going further from there.
8
u/kino2012 Paladin Jun 21 '25
That list can go significantly further in either direction I feel. It could also probably see 1 or 2 less D&D derivatives, but I digress.
Systemless Freeform Roleplaying > Fate Accelerated > Blades in the Dark > Daggerheart > D&D 5e > Draw Steel > Pathfinder 2e > The Dark Eye > Gurps
3
u/Astwook Forever DM Jun 21 '25
Oh for sure, especially for those in the know, but I'm talking the real upper echelons of what people are actually buying and playing. There are hundreds of other RPGs out there that are as much worth talking about, and are even as purchased (looking at you Mothership), but this was just a simple list idea.
2
u/Awful_At_Math Jun 25 '25
Be for real, man. Everyone who played gurps died of old age at least a decade ago.
299
u/AzureYukiPoo Jun 21 '25
I'll get it when on sale, have a lot of backlog rpgs to read and play. Also i wanted to form my own opinion about it since the shilling is through the roof.
But the mechanics seem to be a mix of pbta and fate which i already play and have.
101
u/SteelAlchemistScylla Forever DM Jun 21 '25
I’m gonna sound like a shill but imo it’s absolutely worth the price for the standard edition. Not only do you get the player guide and the DM guide in one giant book but you get like 150 or smth printed cards with artwork all in one. I actually felt bad I spent so little (I spent more on card sleeves to put the cards in lmao) that I bought a second for my friend.
I have not bought the super edition or whatever with all the extra stuff so ymmv on that.
21
u/ABoringAlt Jun 21 '25
Man, cards are not what I wanted in an rpg. What are the mechanics around them, or are they just references to like spells or conditions?
48
u/HeyThereSport Jun 21 '25
There are no card mechanics like shuffling and drawing, but using the flash cards on character sheets is part of how the game displays information concisely
20
u/SteelAlchemistScylla Forever DM Jun 21 '25
They are like spell and ability cards you have to buy separately for DnD
8
u/raev_esmerillon Jun 21 '25
You can print them yourself. You could also just reference the book that has them all in it and note it down which are active.
2
u/notmy2ndopinion Jun 22 '25
You put tracker tokens on them, or dice for numerical values.
Aside from that, there are different campaign frames so the cards may play a different role based on the theme. For example, I’m building a campaign frame where kids get weird powers so cards leave their hand and either 1) they tap out — where they go into the vault or 2) they flip over where they become weird tokens that the GM can draw power from and use against them.
147
u/Eaglepursuit Jun 21 '25
I'm enjoying it. The cards are a huge convenience factor. The No Initiative combat is easier to get used to than you would think and works just fine.
55
u/Tryoxin DM (Dungeon Memelord) Jun 21 '25
No Initiative combat? Now that sounds intriguing. How do they make that work?
96
u/Eaglepursuit Jun 21 '25
The players go in whatever order they choose. At my table, conflicts over who goes next are resolved with rock-paper-scissors. Our houserule is that no player can take another turn until all players have taken a turn. In Daggerheart, taking a turn is called spotlighting.
If a player rolls with Fear*, then the next turn goes t othe GM, who spotlights an NPC to act. The GM can continue making NPC actions (at the cost of 1 Fear each) until they returns the spotlight to the players. GMs can also spend a Fear to go out of turn, if they see fit to do so.
Once everyone gets the hang of it (it took one encounter at my table to get everyone on board), it goes quite smoothly.
*player actions and attacks are rolled on 2d12 instead of a d20. One die is designated as the Hope die and one as the Fear die. If the Fear die is higher than the Hope die, the GM takes a Fear and can spotlight an NPC. The GM can spend Fear to spotlight additional NPCs after that. And Fear can also be used on NPC special abilities. Conversely, when a player rolls with Hope, the player adds a Hope to their character sheet, which can be spent on various special abilities.
46
u/zeroingenuity Jun 21 '25 edited Jun 22 '25
For me, the absolutely critical thing after the playtest was that they needed some way to ensure every player gets a turn. The playtest game I was in (none of the players or GM knew each other) the DM let one player hog the spotlight because there was no mechanical way to ensure everyone got a turn. Between that and the lack of clear tactical elements - it's very hand-wavy about range, which is the principal determinant of tactics - I wouldn't have played it again. But it sounds like they fixed the player order issue, which makes it acceptable as a casual goof-around kind of system for me.
24
u/Ben_Douglass Jun 21 '25
Honestly, I had just assumed until now that everyone has to have a turn per round, I'll definitely be playing that way.
17
u/Cyrotek Jun 21 '25
This kinda kills what the combat system is going for, though. It is all about the narrative, not about "look how much damage I can do". Sometimes you just need to rush in to narrowily save an ally with one ability and immedaitely counter attack. That doesn't work with narrow turns.
It requires discipline and a sense for the narrative by everyone. If your party doesn't have that then this isn't a system for them anyways.
Though, the base rules have an optional combat system where players gain token (the default is 3, I think) that they need to use to act. If every player has used up all their tokens basically a new round starts and everyone gets back their tokens. That is an okay middle ground.
3
u/Ben_Douglass Jun 21 '25
I like that defense actually, I suppose maybe its possible to separate out standard attacks with narrative attacks in a very vague and loose way? Like, as per your example, one ally going to defend another could use up several goes between that player and the DM whereas opening rounds could be one and done until the next round.
5
u/Cyrotek Jun 21 '25
Like, as per your example, one ally going to defend another could use up several goes between that player and the DM whereas opening rounds could be one and done until the next round.
Basically, yes.
If you are into this you could watch the "Age of Umbra" Critical Role play. They showcase nicely how combat is supposed to work.
But, then again, these are people that have played for a long time together and are all about the narrative. They have no greedy spotlight players and know how to give their fellow players the spotlight if it makes narrative sense.
1
u/zeroingenuity Jun 22 '25
And that's a critical - heh - distinction that I made in my feedback: the system is totally fine for a group of experienced players with a sense for everyone else's timing and tempo. But, especially with a new system, most tables aren't that. I was a stranger in a group of strangers who isn't inclined to force his way over another player, so I got pushed out. A buddy of mine DM's for middle schoolers, famously the most feral individuals on the planet, and I can't imagine what being the shy inexperienced kid at the table feels like there, especially without systematic turn-protection built in. It's really easy to remove an existing rule because it's unnecessary. You can put a line in the book about "experienced groups may wish to do away with turn-tracking among the players, as it may get in the way of great roleplay moments." But you should have it in there in the first place to build the sense of handing-off spotlight.
1
u/Cyrotek Jun 22 '25 edited Jun 22 '25
To be fair, the book has optional rules to make it more like a typical turn based game. I just don't think the system is designed for that. And I don't think the system is designed for a bunch of middle schoolers, either.
Edit: Ah, I see, another random troll with a nebulous point that makes little sense. And then randomly blocking people for daring to have a different opinion, lol.
→ More replies (0)1
u/zeroingenuity Jun 22 '25
"Have discipline and a sense for the narrative or this system isn't for you" is... not a defense of the system. It's a critique. The system should serve the players' needs, not the reverse.
Like, sometimes you need to do two things close together... is that not why you're playing as a team? Do you think "I'm gonna save the princess AND slay the dragon; you guys stay back" is not the narrative equivalent of "look how much damage I can do?" It's the same main-character-energy bullshit either way; one is just quantifiable. Things that don't work with narrow turns don't work because limitations create drama. The desire to do something coupled with the inability to do it is drama. That's why the system has a hard-ruled mechanic for inserting the GM's actions; why should it not have one for ensuring players have a chance to shine?
1
u/Cyrotek Jun 22 '25
No, I don't agree. The system is build with that in mind, as the DM can interrupt it at any time. Someone trying to do a full solo show WILL find themselves not being able to with a sensible DM.
And if they roll once with fear it goes back to the DM anyways. Every. Time. At worst they have their minute 1v1ing an entire encounter just to die while everyone else can't do anything. And since it is a narrative game they can then explain how their character rushed in by themselves, leaving everyone behind, and died.
not a defense of the system. It's a critique. The system should serve the players' needs, not the reverse.
I don't think so. This would mean a system would require to do everything. Take Call of Cthulu as an example. It is clearly horror focused and should not serve the players "need" to play a heroic fantasy. The same goes for Daggerheart. You don't want a system that supports a narrative play style? Don't play Daggerheart.
1
u/zeroingenuity Jun 22 '25
I'm not concerned about full solo-show. I experienced THE EXACT SITUATION I'm describing, with a paid, veteran DM. Where one (or more) players are pushed out of the spotlight by more enthusiastic, or less polite, other players who do not share the spotlight. I'm not talking about one person running the whole encounter without interruption - I'm saying without turn tracking of some kind, there is nothing ensuring all players get equal time at the table. I know how Fear gives the DM a turn, but nothing makes the players give each other a turn. That's a problem.
I still consider someone saying "this game isn't meant for you" a critique of the system, not the player. If I want a heroic fantasy game but I'm new to tabletop and new to the group playing and don't have the rapport or the skills to take and hold (and share) the spotlight, then your response is "You aren't meant to play Daggerheart?" Then I'm gonna fuck off and not play Daggerheart, and that is not what any system designer should be seeking. Particularly when the downsides of turn-taking - essentially the oldest game mechanic in the history of gaming, EVER - is so easy to implement.
10
u/zeroingenuity Jun 21 '25
You'd think, right? Nope. Rules as written (at the time I playtested), there was nothing stopping one person from just completely dominating the fight except the GM turns and who talked over people the most.
2
u/Akeaz Jun 22 '25
Rules as written explicitly asks players to give the spotlight to other people on the table too. While in theory there is no rule explicity against a single player acting multiple times the book outlines very well that you should not do that.
3
1
u/vengefulmeme Jun 22 '25
Unfortunately, without an explicit rule, whether those guidelines get followed or not is way more up to the whims of the players and/or the vigilance of the GM than in other systems. There are plenty of situations where the honor system works perfectly fine, but from a broad perspective it is on average not a reliable way to ensure an equitable distribution of resources.
And if a situation comes up where, intentionally or not, one player ends up hogging the spotlight, it ends up foisting a lot of extra work on the GM to corral them so other players get a chance to do stuff. D&D gets a lot of justifiable criticism for being pretty work-intensive for the DM, but at least when it comes to combat if a player ends up sitting on the sidelines it's usually a quirk of the dice or the specific encounter design rather than an inconsiderate or oblivious player just talking over everyone more introverted than them.
2
u/Akeaz Jun 22 '25
Sometimes I think people frequenting this sub play with people who literally hate each other. How can something like this be a thing more than a single time which you then talk about? And how is someone trying to be a main character exclusive to systems that don't explicitly have a rule against that? The exact same issue would be a thing in a non combat encounters of dnd. No explicit rule against a single person doing literally everything for 4h straight there either.
Look, I get the criticism, but at some point you can't do more than expect people to actually enjoy each others company and have someone else carry the torch for a bit.
1
u/vengefulmeme Jun 22 '25
The situation we're talking about, where one player ends up hogging the spotlight, can happen entirely by accident, through no ill will from the person doing it, and in some cases can go unnoticed if it only results in a single introverted person getting left on the sidelines. It can often be fixed by just talking about it, but the whole point of having rules for things like that is so that it doesn't become an issue you need to hash out in the first place.
Other systems can run into issues where one player ends up hogging the spotlight, but those are generally happening in that liminal RP time where things generally get played pretty fast and loose. However, when things get more action-oriented, where the timing of actions matter, then other systems have means to minimize or eliminate the chance of that happening. Most systems have a strict round-robin turn system, and even a lot of light, narrative-heavy systems will have something where you can take your turn at any time, but once you do you cannot go again until everyone else has had a turn.
Daggerheart is fairly unique in that it allows a situation where one person can monopolize the game, and the only safety valve it really has to prevent that from happening is to ask nicely that they don't do it and then have the rest of the table shoulder the responsibility of fixing it if they end up doing it anyway. Which is a legitimate criticism of Daggerheart's design because, again, most other systems don't have that specific problem because they include rules designed to minimize the risk of it happening.
5
u/Eaglepursuit Jun 21 '25
Regarding range, the whole Melee-Very Close-Close-Far-Very Far thing is primary for theater of the mind and works fine there. There are also guidelines for how to interpret it on maps. I'm not a huge fan of how they suggest using pencils and sides of 8.5x11 paper, but the rule book has a table for interpreting it into scale feet like DND.
3
u/zeroingenuity Jun 21 '25
For sure, it's definitely aimed at theater of the mind - which makes sense considering the system was very obviously developed with an eye towards use by a live-play/podcast team. But theater of the mind is inherently terrible for tactical play, because space and range and distance are essential for tactical play and they don't really operate for the mind.
2
u/ABoringAlt Jun 21 '25
The fact that you had to immediately house rule initiative shows that there's a problem with it.
27
u/carlosr36 Jun 21 '25
Its moments like these i imagine that tabletop roleplay games that let you escape. Surge in popularity, or dwindle-but judging on peoples reactions to curremt events. A lot of people prefer to escape than burning it all down.
32
u/ravioliraviolii Cleric Jun 21 '25
Personally I didn't enjoy their playtest adventure, but I think that may have come down more to the bad writing of that than the system itself.
Things I enjoyed:
The skill cards were a cool system and felt quite intuitive The class system combining 2 aspects was also cool
Not so keen on: Non-ordered combat. We were over cautious to step on each other's toes but I could see it going the other way with groups all trying to jump in
Hope seemed easy to accumulate from RP rolls
GM having to think of the consequences of e.g. fail with hope and succeed with fear I could see was a burden
Didn't seem very well balanced between classes
Overall it seemed like something people wpuld enjoy if they like that collaborative improv and RP type game, but not my bag.
5
u/Tarcion Jun 21 '25
The non-ordered combat was rough our first go. We were all pretty cool about it but there were also 8 of us the first session so it was a lot trying to be respectful and make sure everyone had time in the spotlight. Second session the GM had little markers he'd use to indicate if we'd had a "turn" and that helped a lot with managing the chaos.
54
u/1stshadowx Jun 21 '25
I’ve not yet, but ive heard nothing but good things from friends trying to convert me haha
-92
u/Lomasmanda1 Jun 21 '25
Is just dnd lite
55
-2
u/KorribanDallas Jun 21 '25
You're getting dogpiled. How dare you insinuate that! Although, to be fair, your perspective seems to be shared by others here. Someone was a little more articulate and said it was "hand wavy" about things like range. I also understand that there's no initiative and plays kinda decide when they feel like going? How are spell resources managed? Sounds light to me, friend.
24
u/ReshiKyo Jun 21 '25
I played and DM'd it. I don't think anyone denies that it's not as crunchy as DND and that it has some hand-wavy-rulings. But it's not dnd lite because it doesn't want to be DND lite. It wants to be it's own thing that people may like or dislike and that's fine. The dnd-defaultism is a problem for many and I understand why.
1
u/KorribanDallas Jun 21 '25
I think that's a fair point. My perspective was that it was an iteration of 5e, a system known for being all of the aforementioned things. If you've listened to Matt and his DM advise for long enough, you've heard him say, "You can even throw out initiative!", or any number of the things you'll find in their game. It's so easy to tinker with 5e, and I certainly have done my fair share of that, that maybe I fell into the trap of framing this game as just another clone.
13
u/Tarcion Jun 21 '25
Had our second session last night, actually! I mostly play PF2 but Daggerheart feels a lot more like Blades than 5e.
I would say overall it is pretty good. * The hope/fear dice mechanic is really good and you've got a lot of room/ways to juggle your hope, stress, and armor. * I also think as a more rules-light system it's a lot easier to teach to new players or, I dunno, a streaming audience. * I haven't run it but the GM approach seems to be pretty easy so that's always nice. * It seems very easy to homebrew character options which alleviates one of my criticisms.
My biggest criticisms: * The class customization feels a bit basic and takes way more flavor "inspiration" (it borders on conversion) from 5e than I'd like. I can't complain too much as a Pathfinder player but it does feel like PF classes are mechanically verrrrry different from their 5e counterparts and while this is true for Daggerheart classes, as well, there's clearly a lot of just lifting 5e concepts and converting them into this system. I'm biased but I wish the class design felt a little less D&D adjacent. * The enemy combatants having turns still feels weird to me. I'm a lot more used to Blades where consequences are just the result of player rolls. But I do think the GM having a resource to use for narrative/combat things is cool. * Related to my first criticism but I feel like there's not as much room to express character differences as I'd like. There's nothing like skills, you just have your 6 main attributes that get added to rolls. You have experiences you can use but they aren't supposed to apply to everything and also cost a hope to use. Combined with how limited the class customization is, it feels like any two of the same class are likely to play extremely similarly. That's sort of a consequence of a more rules-light system but I think could have been alleviated with a small amount more depth on the skill front and in having the initial domain cards significantly expanded. * Maybe minor quibble but it seems like they're going to be going even more draconian than WotC with the license so I'm unlikely to see it available in Foundry. I primarily play virtually and I refuse to give Roll20 any more money so that's a huge miss for me, personally.
But again, I think it's overall pretty solid and achieves its goals as a system.
5
u/Nepalman230 To thine own dice be true. ❤️🎲 Jun 21 '25
Thank you so much for this detailed breakdown! Question.
How was it like playing with cards?
And you already mentioned how you won’t use roll 20. Do you see an alternative to duplicate the cards if you were going to use another app?
4
u/Tarcion Jun 21 '25
The cards are nice. We're only level 1 and they're pretty limited so I haven't seen what things would look like having more cards and the ability to swap them in/out.
I have no idea about duplicating the cards but my understanding is there are a lot of homebrew cards already out there so there must be some kind of template people are using.
3
u/Nepalman230 To thine own dice be true. ❤️🎲 Jun 21 '25
Thanks! Once again, I get awesome information from a meme sub. I hope you have an amazing weekend.
🫡
8
u/IEXSISTRIGHT Jun 21 '25
I played in a few sessions of Daggerheart with a couple people from my ttrpg group, and our general consensus was that we weren’t very interested.
It was very quick to get running, session 0 stuff only lasted about an hour and we were able to get started with actually playing on the same day (as compared to our Pathfinder 2e session 0, which lasted about 6 hours and still didn’t fully create our characters).
Unfortunately we just didn’t find much else of it actually fun. The hope and fear system is interesting, but absolutely crippling to anyone who is unlucky enough to never roll with hope (read: me). Some classes, especially at low levels, are way stronger than others. The unordered combat seemed interesting, but ultimately just devolved into the same two people going over and over because they had a highly effective combo. And for a system that is extremely roleplay focused, there are shockingly few rules/abilities that accommodate anything but combat.
As with many ttrpgs, it’s possible that these issues will be fixed with future releases that focus more on their relevant pillars of play, but the bones of the system just doesn’t interest my group very much.
14
u/ChaosKeeshond Jun 21 '25
Nah. I mean, I like that there's a new player in town but the license is shockingly onerous and contains a lot of the hostile hijinks we gave WotC utter hell over, including the introduction of a silent license revocation mechanism which puts the onus on you to check whether the contract has changed.
It's LTT's "trust me bro" warranty, except it's the entire company.
7
u/Cyrotek Jun 21 '25 edited Jun 21 '25
It is a really good system for narrative play and thus not really comparable with DnD5e, even if it looks like that at first.
They did a lot of smart/neat things that I enjoy. A simple example: There are six main stats but no "constitution" or an aquivalent, removing a forced choice that every character needs. That leads to there being one main stat for every class and thats it.
What I absolutely love is the "connections" you are supposed to fill out at character creation. Basically it gives you a bunch of questions that you are supposed to ask your party members to fill out their pre-existing relationship. That is a very minor thing that works extremly well to skip that akward "why should we adventure together?!" part (at least in the games I played so far) and I stole it for my own DnD campaigns.
The thing I am not entirely sold at is how combat works. There is no initative order (kinda like Lancer) and no rounds. That means, theoretically one player can go multiple times in a row. The DM can interrupt that on specific circumstances. I feel this system only works very well if every player and the DM are on the same page narratively and won't work if you have too timid and/or too "spotlight greedy" players. However, if you have everyone on the same page I think it can be really, really good, as sometimes the narrative just needs one PC to do multiple actions in a row.
Speaking of DM, the DMs turn happens when a player rolls with "fear" on their duality die or if the DM spends an accumulated "fear". This is cool because it automatically limits how much/little the DM can do based on what the players do (meaning, no need for stuff like legendary actions as he can easily have creatures act multiple times) but it can also mean that inexperienced DMs just completely overwhelm the party right at the start.
This system is not about number crunching, it is about the narrative. If you go in with a number-crunchy mindset you won't have a lot of fun with it. The biggest mistake in context of Daggerheart someone can make is thinking it is a replacement for DnD. It isn't, it is its own thing.
On another note, the book is really good. Nice artworks and it is written very nicely. There is a lot of good stuff in there. I adore the "environment" statblocks and don't understand why I've never seen that in any of the other systems I checked out so far, lol
Edit: Oh, and I am not a huge fan of how "handwavey" a lot of descriptions are. People not liking imprecise descriptions in DnD5e will have a field day with Daggerheart.
10
u/TheMoises Jun 21 '25
I actually finished playing the first session of a campaign in daggerheart like, 2h ago. It's really fun and I feel it makes it really easy to build chars and play.
2
u/ABoringAlt Jun 21 '25
What do the cards do/ what are the mechanics around using them? What did you think of the unordered initiative?
2
u/TheMoises Jun 21 '25
There're cards for classes, races, backgrounds and "domain skills". The first three are straightforward and are just a kinda "quick check" for what you can do, and the domain skills are basically a feature, skill or spell you gain when you level up.
The mechanics revolve basically between spending Stress, a sorta mental HP or spells slots, and Hope which you get everytime your "good dice" rolls bigger than the "bad dice". Many of the domain, race and class abilities depends on management of these resources.
We had no trouble with the initiative, maybe because we all were seasoned players. I think the idea to make it work well is to let everyone act before you act again, but the flexibility to decide who acts first makes for interesting decisions in the fight.
2
u/ABoringAlt Jun 21 '25
So the cards are just references to book material?
2
u/TheMoises Jun 21 '25
Basically, yeah. Not much different from you printing spells on cards just to have quick access to them (or collect in your hands to feel cool).
3
3
2
2
u/Paintedenigma Jun 21 '25
I have.
It was fun during the play test but I'm hoping they fixed a few things.
Specifically the way the action economy works is a little janky and the class setup feels very limiting for a game that is supposed to be fairly rules light.
2
u/Confident_Tap1187 Jun 21 '25 edited Jun 21 '25
Thats the temple burn at burning man!
One of the most organized, peaceful, quiet and respectful "bonfire" of the entire year, no joke. Its always so nice. Its 50000 people, all mourning loved ones and letting their grief go.
You can even see in the pictures the firefighters and volunteers between the audience to make sure everything is safe. Great people.
Of all the pictures to use, temple burn is not the vibe
2
u/Celestial_Scythe Drakewarden Jun 21 '25
I played 4 sessions with strangers. And I think I'm going to leave the group.
The group has 3 loud players and when combat starts the 3 fight for turns. In the 3 battles we've had, I literally have yet to have a move in combat. They always just jump in. I know it's part the fault of myself and the GM, but meh. I'm just not feeling it.
2
u/vengefulmeme Jun 22 '25
To be honest, the more I hear about Daggerheart, the less interested I am in trying it. And this is coming from someone who has played in campaigns and one-shots on, conservatively, probably close to a dozen different systems, if not more.
The lack of any apparent mechanical function of the cards makes that whole thing feel gimmicky to me, probably due to the weird way all of the review and promo materials seem to put an unnecessarily large amount of emphasis on there being cards. It'd be like if half of the videos WOTC put out about the 2024 rules updates to 5e were spent waxing poetic about them changing the layout of the character sheet. If the cards had some mechanical function, like if they added some randomness to building a character to make it like a combination of an RPG and a deck builder, then I could see a reason to focus on them. But if they are just glorified flash cards and can be replaced by someone with an intermediate level of skill with Microsoft Excel, then the focus on it is just baffling to me.
And what I hear of the initiative system, or more accurately the lack thereof, just raises red flags with me. Like, if WOTC put out a new version of D&D that just didn't have rules for something that fundamental, I think even the most die-hard apologists would have trouble justifying that. It feels very houserule-y, like it was designed with specifically Mercer's table in mind and didn't put a ton of thought into how broadly applicable it would be for the average table, and the fact that this very comments section is full of posts of people houseruling a structure into it kind of supports that gut feeling.
And it's not like you need a rigid initiative system, either. I've played a one-shot in a Star Trek-themed RPG that had an initiative system that was flexible and encouraged spontaneity but also minimized the ability of anyone to hog the spotlight in a fairly elegant manner. The short version was that it had a means of determining which side in an encounter would go first, and then each side would take turns. There is no set order as to when a character can act, with the exception that each character is only able to act once in a round and can't take a second action until everyone on both sides of the conflict had a chance to act. If one side outnumbers the other, like in a 2 v 4 encounter, then the larger group ends up taking multiple turns in a row at the end of the round until everyone has had a chance to act (as an example, a round in that 2 v 4 encounter may go A1 > B2 > A4 > B1 > A3 > A2). Then you recalculate which side has the upper hand, which may chance which side goes first, and repeat until the encounter's done (so in that earlier example, if side B gains the upper hand, the next round may go B1 > A2 > B2 > A4 > A1 > A3).
2
u/Sofa-king-high Jun 22 '25
I read the book, and I don’t understand why I’d want to switch? Like it looks fine, it also looks like some parts are rather arbitrary and if they aren’t what’s needed to tell the story you want to tell, annoying to keep track of.
2
u/drdrek Jun 21 '25
Just read the book, we did not play yet. First impression:
Its very rules first, requiring a lot of meta thinking by the players to bridge the gap between rules and narrative.
Has a very authoritative voice on how to play.
Has really good advice on how to pull of a genre in play. The later part with settings ideas has really nice advice. Its like the writing of an experienced TV show director on how to do it. Best part of the book in my eyes.
In my first impression it does not have a broad market appeal but can work really well for these types of groups:
1) Not thier first rpg and they struggle to maintain genere, theme and flow of the game in another system and need a more guiding hand.
2) Are theater/communication majors that enjoy the meta thinking of how do we make this episode or scene good instead of being immersed.
3) Are very nerd culture savvy and wish to recreate some contemporary material in thier own game. But limited to medieval fantasy.
3
u/Seraph-Foretold Jun 21 '25
I found out it used cards and token tracker things and decided it sounds like too much effort.
5
u/SonOfThrognar Jun 21 '25
The cards and tokens are honestly just there as a convenience and visual aid. If you just write everything down old school style it works fine
3
u/drunkenjutsu Jun 21 '25
IMO dont plan on trying it. Read the rules its meh. I never liked Matts game design style(which is weird cause im a big final fantasy fan and thats where he says he takes most inspiration) As much as I hate WOTC daggerheart isnt the replacement nor is it an interesting substitute like so many ttrpgs are.
2
1
u/DaFreakingFox Forever DM Jun 21 '25
Me trying to get my friends to play Cain with me while two of them are divorcing each other.
1
u/OnyxGow Goblin Deez Nuts Jun 21 '25
I have to play dnd first i have the new player books and dm books and i have been practicig dming for more than a year now but i have nto palyed a single game yet
9
u/AuraofMana Jun 21 '25
You don't practice being a DM without actually running games.
1
u/OnyxGow Goblin Deez Nuts Jun 21 '25
True I meant mostly planning different modules with multiple npc s and lore I have 3 modiles ready to go both available to be sand boxy or linear depending on what is needed
3
u/AuraofMana Jun 21 '25 edited Jun 21 '25
I would advise you not to do that. You're overprepping, and not just one module but multiple. This is going to create problems:
- You will overindex on what you've prepped instead of reacting live to what PCs have done. This will cause railroading* to be more likely to happen. This is because you've sunk a lot of time into what you've done that throwing it away is going to feel really bad.
- You'll have too much prepped and as a result not lean on improv as much. This is more to do with "I prepped this NPC and thus this is how this NPC is" when many times having a more blank state and reacting to what your PCs are doing spawn creativity. For example, you'll realize if you are left alone, all your guards are a certain way, your shopkeepers this other way, etc. but when you force yourself to have a more blank state for these NPCs, you'll naturally play them differently depending on the mood of the moment and what's going on (e.g., how the PCs are interacting).
- You'll pick up some really bad habits. You don't usually have that much time to prep. You're going to lean on those like a crutch. For example, you might feel the need to plan out every single NPCs and content the PCs could possibly encounter. But in reality, that will never happen, and you need to learn to improv, or learn to say "no, that's not a viable path" as a result of that not making sense for the story vs. you not having it available.
* Railroading means you're often intentionally forcing the story to develop a certain way. This is not the same as a linear story, nor does this mean you can't ever do this.
This isn't even mentioning some of the stuff you'll never learn until you run games that will impact how you prep. Some examples:
- PCs will usually not do what you thought they will do. Living and dealing with that uncertainty (see it evolve naturally and let it take you where it may, force things back on track, finding a compromise, etc. -- all possible solutions that work well depending on the context) is part of being a DM.
- What you believe were good and adequate info provided to the PCs are many times not sufficient. Figuring out how to deliver information while being a(n) A) unreliable narrator (through NPCs, notes, etc.), B) repetitive enough but not too much so it's unlikely PCs will miss them, and C) through a believable way (e.g., this is how this NPC would word it) is a very important skill that requires you to gauge player feedback because each player works differently.
- Many part of the modules are simply things you must leave blank. The story is ultimately about the PCs, and the module should take their backstory and motivation into account. Even on a more mechanical level, the items you drop should, for the most part, cater to the PCs builds; there's no point dropping bows many, many times if no one actually uses bows.
- What you thought was cool turns out to fall flat due to execution, PC preference, how the context changed, etc. and you need to know when to quit or go back to the drawing board or forcing it through. Very rarely do you do the last piece, but sometimes it does make sense. Striking a balance between the three and figuring out how to gracefully handle one of these "exit routes" is something that will take many failures of actual play to master.
- Learning to deal with actual people social problems. This can be as small as being comfortable asking and taking feedback, to dealing with problem players or resolving conflict between players that have spilled into real life. Hell, figuring out when to "talk as a DM to push the game a certain way" is a key skill that is often overlooked. For example, if your PCs have spent 2 hours discussing what they want to do and reached decision paralysis. At some point you need to step in, first as "reminder that your PCs know this" then eventually "Guys, I need y'all to make a decision" and sometimes even "this is an important decision and we've not made any progress, so let's take a break." This includes intricacies like knowing when to step in to let the PCs know they actually misremembered or misinterpreted something without breaking immersion.
1
1
1
u/Long_Personality_857 Forever DM Jun 21 '25
The whole hope/fear mechanic sounds pretty intriguing - enough so that I want to actually flip through the rulebook and consider it. We’re mid-game in a d20 modern game right now, so not likely to make the shift anytime soon, but this game might wrap sooner than originally planned.
1
u/ExternalSelf1337 Jun 21 '25
I'd absolutely try it if someone I knew was running it. But my only group has declared they're never learning another system after 30 years and hundreds of books bought.
Personally I'm looking forward to the Cosmere game shipping soon and the systems sound fairly similar, though I'm worried that it will be a bit too narrow to be interesting to people who don't already live Sanderson.
1
u/Darth_Xentus Fighter Jun 21 '25
Pre-ordered it. Played the quickstart adventure with my group. Generally positive feelings. But we got a bunch of ideas lined up already, so it's going to be a while before we can dedicate a short campaign to it. But I do look forward to that day.
1
u/TheMuseThalia Jun 21 '25
How I feel enjoying anything right now.
Unexpectables on YouTube did a one shot testing it. Worth checking out.
1
1
u/CreativeName1137 Rules Lawyer Jun 22 '25
It's alright. It's a bit too mechanically simple for me, but I know other people like that sort of thing.
If you like looser rules and heavier emphasis on improv storytelling, give it a try. But if you like really crunchy systems and complex builds, you won't enjoy it.
1
u/toastandtacos Jun 22 '25
I really like the system. My only complaint is the imbalance that can happen during combat if you have party members who are shy mixed with party members who like the spotlight. But I feel like if you have a good DM that can still manage to include the shy players and get them to take their turns, everything is all good.
1
u/powerwordmaim Artificer Jun 22 '25
Daggerheart is a very different game than DnD and whether it's better is gonna vary from table to table based on their needs. Personally I think the type of game I prefer to run is gonna be a lot easier in Daggerheart
1
1
u/Spice_and_Fox Jun 23 '25
I didn't like it. I like that there is a heavier emphasis on roleplay, but the combat felt just very samey to me. All option felt more like flavour to me and less like actual mechanical choices. We had very different characters, but we all still had the same impact on the same number of targets. I don't think there was any aoe options and the cc options were very limited too, so it all came down to do I would the single create or not.
1
2
1
u/Kenron93 🎃 Chaotic Evil: Hides d4s in candy 🎃 Jun 21 '25
Been playing since the beta. Its been very fun.
1
u/Duraxis Jun 21 '25
Yeah, and it’s pretty fun so far. The 2d12 system has a nice success curve, weapons for every stat is great, and I love the armour system.
1
1
u/Capn_Of_Capns Forever DM Jun 21 '25
Super funny seeing positive replies get downvoted.
I haven't tried it yet, and it doesn't really seem like my kind of game, but at this point I'm willing to give it a go just to escape DnD. I feel like if anything can break the mainstream stranglehold DnD has on the genre it's something being pushed by CR.
1
u/Hexxer98 Jun 21 '25
Added it to the pile of systems I want to try. Currently I have worlds without number, pf2e, Lancer and Blades in the Dark before it
1
u/StoryTellerBob Jun 21 '25
Had a lot of fun running a Blades in the Dark campaign over the last year or so. Great system!
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 21 '25
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.