Daggerheart: I expected another Dungeons and Dragons, but found something much, much better
-
I run a table. One of the people at the table insisted that I checked out Daggerheart. So I did. And I was very pleasantly surprised.
Why? Well, I admit I had some prejudices against it. First, I sort of made up my mind when I saw the whole licensing issue, Daggerheart basically doing what Wizards of the Coast did with Dungeons and Dragons. But not only that, I also saw red flags in Daggerheart itself: minis.
I saw a video for Daggerheart where the thumbnail showed minis. I was out. I find minis so frustrating. They are in my list of things that I cannot care about. I care about dramatic stories, not combat simulation. I care about intrigue and character growth, not arithmetic. I saw that and assumed that Daggerheart was a combat simulator just like Dungeons and Dragons is. I didn’t even pay attention.
But then my friend insisted that I read about Daggerheart. And so I did.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that minis are optional. Even more importantly, I was shocked to find a game that effectively is Powered by the Apocalypse. I was especially relieved to not find rules for movement that require trigonometry or strange approximations (unlike Dungeons and Dragons, where there are grids and numbers everywhere).
I found a game that prioritized drama. Yes, it still simulates combat, but it does so in such a simple way that makes me happy to run it.
I’m excited! This would be the first game that I ever play when the game is just released. This would be the first game in which I don’t even have to pitch to the table; the table already wants to play it.
Of course, these are my first impressions. Maybe they’ll change. For now, I’m happy.
-
I run a table. One of the people at the table insisted that I checked out Daggerheart. So I did. And I was very pleasantly surprised.
Why? Well, I admit I had some prejudices against it. First, I sort of made up my mind when I saw the whole licensing issue, Daggerheart basically doing what Wizards of the Coast did with Dungeons and Dragons. But not only that, I also saw red flags in Daggerheart itself: minis.
I saw a video for Daggerheart where the thumbnail showed minis. I was out. I find minis so frustrating. They are in my list of things that I cannot care about. I care about dramatic stories, not combat simulation. I care about intrigue and character growth, not arithmetic. I saw that and assumed that Daggerheart was a combat simulator just like Dungeons and Dragons is. I didn’t even pay attention.
But then my friend insisted that I read about Daggerheart. And so I did.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that minis are optional. Even more importantly, I was shocked to find a game that effectively is Powered by the Apocalypse. I was especially relieved to not find rules for movement that require trigonometry or strange approximations (unlike Dungeons and Dragons, where there are grids and numbers everywhere).
I found a game that prioritized drama. Yes, it still simulates combat, but it does so in such a simple way that makes me happy to run it.
I’m excited! This would be the first game that I ever play when the game is just released. This would be the first game in which I don’t even have to pitch to the table; the table already wants to play it.
Of course, these are my first impressions. Maybe they’ll change. For now, I’m happy.
Would be interested to know how it diverges from PbtA? Sounds cool though!
-
I run a table. One of the people at the table insisted that I checked out Daggerheart. So I did. And I was very pleasantly surprised.
Why? Well, I admit I had some prejudices against it. First, I sort of made up my mind when I saw the whole licensing issue, Daggerheart basically doing what Wizards of the Coast did with Dungeons and Dragons. But not only that, I also saw red flags in Daggerheart itself: minis.
I saw a video for Daggerheart where the thumbnail showed minis. I was out. I find minis so frustrating. They are in my list of things that I cannot care about. I care about dramatic stories, not combat simulation. I care about intrigue and character growth, not arithmetic. I saw that and assumed that Daggerheart was a combat simulator just like Dungeons and Dragons is. I didn’t even pay attention.
But then my friend insisted that I read about Daggerheart. And so I did.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that minis are optional. Even more importantly, I was shocked to find a game that effectively is Powered by the Apocalypse. I was especially relieved to not find rules for movement that require trigonometry or strange approximations (unlike Dungeons and Dragons, where there are grids and numbers everywhere).
I found a game that prioritized drama. Yes, it still simulates combat, but it does so in such a simple way that makes me happy to run it.
I’m excited! This would be the first game that I ever play when the game is just released. This would be the first game in which I don’t even have to pitch to the table; the table already wants to play it.
Of course, these are my first impressions. Maybe they’ll change. For now, I’m happy.
I have yet to meet a pbta game I actually like. I was going to check out dagger heart (I have heard nothing positive about it from my customers), I think I will wait for Anna to get a pdf.
-
I have yet to meet a pbta game I actually like. I was going to check out dagger heart (I have heard nothing positive about it from my customers), I think I will wait for Anna to get a pdf.
Fair enough. PbtA is not for everyone. In fact, sometimes PbtA is not for me; sometimes I just want to hack and slash and strategize with strict rules instead of creating dramatic stories.
Have you checked out the PbtA grandpa, Apocalypse World?
-
Would be interested to know how it diverges from PbtA? Sounds cool though!
EDIT: Oh… I just realized you asked how it DIVERGES from PbtA, not how it is similar to PbtA. lol my bad. I’ll come back with a more informed response later!
So far I can confidently tell you that the Player Principles in Daggerheart are very much like the Principles of Apocalypse World:
- Be a fan of the character
- Address the characters
- Look through crosshairs
- Play to find out what happens
In other words, it gives clear guidance on what it means to be an MC/GM. It’s explicit about not railroading. It’s explicit about not pulling the rug underneath your players (“Oops! You didn’t check for traps! That’s 999999 bludgeoning damage coming your way!”). I like when games are this explicit; it’s easier to have a conversation about what good and bad GMing looks like.
I also know that it doesn’t just have success and failure (and critical successes and failures). Instead, it has successes and failures that aren’t as extreme, so small complications pop up more often.
The character progression checklist also looks straight up from an Apocalypse World character sheet (in a good way!). [Edit 2: I learned that the checklist might be similar to Apocalypse World, but there’s this whole card system where each level involves choosing new feats or abilities or things like that, all related to your class]
-
I run a table. One of the people at the table insisted that I checked out Daggerheart. So I did. And I was very pleasantly surprised.
Why? Well, I admit I had some prejudices against it. First, I sort of made up my mind when I saw the whole licensing issue, Daggerheart basically doing what Wizards of the Coast did with Dungeons and Dragons. But not only that, I also saw red flags in Daggerheart itself: minis.
I saw a video for Daggerheart where the thumbnail showed minis. I was out. I find minis so frustrating. They are in my list of things that I cannot care about. I care about dramatic stories, not combat simulation. I care about intrigue and character growth, not arithmetic. I saw that and assumed that Daggerheart was a combat simulator just like Dungeons and Dragons is. I didn’t even pay attention.
But then my friend insisted that I read about Daggerheart. And so I did.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that minis are optional. Even more importantly, I was shocked to find a game that effectively is Powered by the Apocalypse. I was especially relieved to not find rules for movement that require trigonometry or strange approximations (unlike Dungeons and Dragons, where there are grids and numbers everywhere).
I found a game that prioritized drama. Yes, it still simulates combat, but it does so in such a simple way that makes me happy to run it.
I’m excited! This would be the first game that I ever play when the game is just released. This would be the first game in which I don’t even have to pitch to the table; the table already wants to play it.
Of course, these are my first impressions. Maybe they’ll change. For now, I’m happy.
The (VTT) game I’m a player in is moving to DH next campaign after playing the initial pre-releases for a few months and really enjoying it. Next campaign won’t be for 4 to 6 months though, so I’ve haven’t gone in to look at what changed.
-
I run a table. One of the people at the table insisted that I checked out Daggerheart. So I did. And I was very pleasantly surprised.
Why? Well, I admit I had some prejudices against it. First, I sort of made up my mind when I saw the whole licensing issue, Daggerheart basically doing what Wizards of the Coast did with Dungeons and Dragons. But not only that, I also saw red flags in Daggerheart itself: minis.
I saw a video for Daggerheart where the thumbnail showed minis. I was out. I find minis so frustrating. They are in my list of things that I cannot care about. I care about dramatic stories, not combat simulation. I care about intrigue and character growth, not arithmetic. I saw that and assumed that Daggerheart was a combat simulator just like Dungeons and Dragons is. I didn’t even pay attention.
But then my friend insisted that I read about Daggerheart. And so I did.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that minis are optional. Even more importantly, I was shocked to find a game that effectively is Powered by the Apocalypse. I was especially relieved to not find rules for movement that require trigonometry or strange approximations (unlike Dungeons and Dragons, where there are grids and numbers everywhere).
I found a game that prioritized drama. Yes, it still simulates combat, but it does so in such a simple way that makes me happy to run it.
I’m excited! This would be the first game that I ever play when the game is just released. This would be the first game in which I don’t even have to pitch to the table; the table already wants to play it.
Of course, these are my first impressions. Maybe they’ll change. For now, I’m happy.
I would be interested in reading through this if they release a free rules version. I can’t justify paying for a RPG ruleset if I am not going to be playing it. Have they released one yet? There wasn’t when I last checked it out.
-
Would be interested to know how it diverges from PbtA? Sounds cool though!
What is PbtA? Well, the Baker’s definition:
“Powered by the Apocalypse” isn’t the name of a kind of game, set of game elements, or even the core design thrust of a coherent movement. (Ha! This last, the least so.) Its use in a game’s trade dress signifies ONLY that the game was inspired by Apocalypse World in a way that the designer considers significant, and that it follows our policy wrt others’ use of our creative work.
Is Daggerheart inspired by Apocalypse World? I think so: Meguey Baker co-authored Apocalypse World and the post-apocalyptic “Motherboard” campaign frame in Daggerheart. I would be surprised if Mercer would not have credited PbtA somewhere. If Darrington Press would like to, Meg and Vincent would probably approve with the “PbtA” stamp.
It doesn’t use the “2d6+stat” role mechanic but that is not essential just like all the other game mechanics.
I’m sorry. This is probably not very helpful. Maybe a more precise answer could be given if you ask how it diverges from “Dungeon World” or some other PbtA game you know.
-
I would be interested in reading through this if they release a free rules version. I can’t justify paying for a RPG ruleset if I am not going to be playing it. Have they released one yet? There wasn’t when I last checked it out.
You mean like a System Reference Document?
-
I run a table. One of the people at the table insisted that I checked out Daggerheart. So I did. And I was very pleasantly surprised.
Why? Well, I admit I had some prejudices against it. First, I sort of made up my mind when I saw the whole licensing issue, Daggerheart basically doing what Wizards of the Coast did with Dungeons and Dragons. But not only that, I also saw red flags in Daggerheart itself: minis.
I saw a video for Daggerheart where the thumbnail showed minis. I was out. I find minis so frustrating. They are in my list of things that I cannot care about. I care about dramatic stories, not combat simulation. I care about intrigue and character growth, not arithmetic. I saw that and assumed that Daggerheart was a combat simulator just like Dungeons and Dragons is. I didn’t even pay attention.
But then my friend insisted that I read about Daggerheart. And so I did.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that minis are optional. Even more importantly, I was shocked to find a game that effectively is Powered by the Apocalypse. I was especially relieved to not find rules for movement that require trigonometry or strange approximations (unlike Dungeons and Dragons, where there are grids and numbers everywhere).
I found a game that prioritized drama. Yes, it still simulates combat, but it does so in such a simple way that makes me happy to run it.
I’m excited! This would be the first game that I ever play when the game is just released. This would be the first game in which I don’t even have to pitch to the table; the table already wants to play it.
Of course, these are my first impressions. Maybe they’ll change. For now, I’m happy.
I think that the Critical Role crew has done their utmost to conflate DnD with improv stage performance and that Daggerheart looks like nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand.
Idk, it might be fun — don’t let my personal feelings about Critical Role cloud your judgement. I just have been very disappointed with Critical Role and have decided to vote with my wallet.
-
I have yet to meet a pbta game I actually like. I was going to check out dagger heart (I have heard nothing positive about it from my customers), I think I will wait for Anna to get a pdf.
Same here. I was kind of interested in Daggerheart as something to propose as an alternative for my friends who dig the tradgame vibe (I honestly assumed it was going to be very 5e like but with some tweaks and serial numbers filed off), but hearing it’s PbtA-like has dashed all my interest.
-
I think that the Critical Role crew has done their utmost to conflate DnD with improv stage performance and that Daggerheart looks like nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand.
Idk, it might be fun — don’t let my personal feelings about Critical Role cloud your judgement. I just have been very disappointed with Critical Role and have decided to vote with my wallet.
Huh. Thanks for sharing. I’m totally up for critically evaluating Critical Role and Daggerheart.
I do agree that Critical Role’s play style was a bit like a square peg in a round hole. Other games could’ve been more appropriate for them. Arguably a more appropriate game for them is Daggerheart.
As to not letting your personal feelings about Critical Role cloud my judgement, thanks for caring about not biasing me. At the same time, I’m sure you have good reasons to be critical of Daggerheart. Understanding why we say what we say sounds like a good plan, and I’m curious to hear what you think:
What is it about Daggerheart that makes you think it’s nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand?
-
Same here. I was kind of interested in Daggerheart as something to propose as an alternative for my friends who dig the tradgame vibe (I honestly assumed it was going to be very 5e like but with some tweaks and serial numbers filed off), but hearing it’s PbtA-like has dashed all my interest.
Totally valid. I assume you like combat simulators like Dungeons and Dragons. Is that the case? If not, what do you dislike about PbtA?
-
Totally valid. I assume you like combat simulators like Dungeons and Dragons. Is that the case? If not, what do you dislike about PbtA?
For me it's not so much combat I'm looking for as competence (and due to this, D&D 5e irritates me for largely restricting competence to combat by various means). PBtA rubs me the wrong way primarily because, when combined with a system that makes "yes, but" the most common result, moves feel less like the things your character can do well and more like the things characters try to do despite not being good at them.
Also, PBtA games tend to dictate *who* your character is more than most.
-
For me it's not so much combat I'm looking for as competence (and due to this, D&D 5e irritates me for largely restricting competence to combat by various means). PBtA rubs me the wrong way primarily because, when combined with a system that makes "yes, but" the most common result, moves feel less like the things your character can do well and more like the things characters try to do despite not being good at them.
Also, PBtA games tend to dictate *who* your character is more than most.
Gotcha.
I see what you mean. Apocalypse World is not on the side of brutally hard or the side of trivially easy; it sits in the middle, in “yes, but”. Some games make certain things impossible (“No, you can’t jump to the moon”). Other games make things trivial (“Sure, use your ‘ultra high jump’ ability”). In other games, the difference between “you can’t” and “sure” is just your character’s level.
This means that, no matter how weak or strong your character is, you can try anything. This does not mean, however, that all characters in Apocalypse World are equally competent. In Apocalypse World, an incompetent character usually has a -2 stat, while a very competent character has a +3 stat. The difference between -2 and +3 is quite massive, even if it doesn’t seem at first.
You can be sure of it by checking out this graph that Vincent Baker, the creator of Apocalypse World, made:
Notice that your odds of a strong hit go from 5% to 55%. Your odds of at least a weak hit go from 30% to 90%. If a teacher saw their student go from 30% to 90%, they’d think the student changed, grew, became more competent.
Well, but aren’t other games more dramatic in their character stat growth? Aren’t other games in the extremes of brutally hard or trivially easy? Probably, but I’m not sure that this is a bug. To me, it’s a feature.
My players can try anything. They want to burn the whole realm in a single Move? They do it. And I get to think about how that changes the world. I get to think about how the fire destroyed their own home. I get to think about what new societies arise from the ashes. I get to think about how the players’ NPC friends are now plotting against them. In other words, the fact that players can try anything at all makes the game very interesting to me and to my friends. I never tell them “nope, you can’t”. I also never tell them “obviously you can”. Instead, they can always genuinely try. And the world constantly adapts. There is no status quo. That’s the feature, not the bug.
If players can try anything, how come their character sheets are so over-constrained? This is a good point. I agree with you. If you dislike the character sheets in Apocalypse World, it’s kind of a bummer. However, the way that Apocalypse World does characters is decidedly not how all PbtA games do characters. Vincent Baker himself has said that his character playbooks are a sort of historical accident and that other PbtA games could be entirely different (1). And, indeed, there are PbtA games that are entirely different.
Take Ironsworn or Starforged. Both of those games are Powered by the Apocalypse and have an explosion of options for character creation. During character creation, you’re given a deck of cards, and you get to pick three of them for your character. Each card represents a special feat, ability, companion, tool, magic, vehicle, or other options. In Ironsworn there are 75 assets, which gives you 405,150 different combinations for your character. In Starforged there are 87 assets, which gives you 635,970 different combinations for your character.
How does Daggerheart fare in this regard? Does it over-constrain characters? In short, it’s nowhere close to Apocalypse World. Yes, it doesn’t have Ironsworn and Starforged’s explosion of options. However, they do have a card system in which you can choose your character’s ancestry and community. You also choose different cards every time you level up, cards that are specific to your class. This is definitely not an over-constraining game.
So, to recap, the difference between a competent Apocalypse World character and an incompetent one is great. However, players can still always succeed or always fail, which I think is not a bug, but a feature; the world is always adapting to what players do! Finally, Daggerheart is nowhere close to Apocalypse World in terms of over-constraining characters.
(1) Here Vincent Baker shows that Playbooks are even optional to the Apocalypse World model.
-
What is PbtA? Well, the Baker’s definition:
“Powered by the Apocalypse” isn’t the name of a kind of game, set of game elements, or even the core design thrust of a coherent movement. (Ha! This last, the least so.) Its use in a game’s trade dress signifies ONLY that the game was inspired by Apocalypse World in a way that the designer considers significant, and that it follows our policy wrt others’ use of our creative work.
Is Daggerheart inspired by Apocalypse World? I think so: Meguey Baker co-authored Apocalypse World and the post-apocalyptic “Motherboard” campaign frame in Daggerheart. I would be surprised if Mercer would not have credited PbtA somewhere. If Darrington Press would like to, Meg and Vincent would probably approve with the “PbtA” stamp.
It doesn’t use the “2d6+stat” role mechanic but that is not essential just like all the other game mechanics.
I’m sorry. This is probably not very helpful. Maybe a more precise answer could be given if you ask how it diverges from “Dungeon World” or some other PbtA game you know.
That’s cool, I didn’t realise PbtA was such a broad term in its own right. I’ve played a little Dungeon World and others, but not enough to know the background of all that.
-
EDIT: Oh… I just realized you asked how it DIVERGES from PbtA, not how it is similar to PbtA. lol my bad. I’ll come back with a more informed response later!
So far I can confidently tell you that the Player Principles in Daggerheart are very much like the Principles of Apocalypse World:
- Be a fan of the character
- Address the characters
- Look through crosshairs
- Play to find out what happens
In other words, it gives clear guidance on what it means to be an MC/GM. It’s explicit about not railroading. It’s explicit about not pulling the rug underneath your players (“Oops! You didn’t check for traps! That’s 999999 bludgeoning damage coming your way!”). I like when games are this explicit; it’s easier to have a conversation about what good and bad GMing looks like.
I also know that it doesn’t just have success and failure (and critical successes and failures). Instead, it has successes and failures that aren’t as extreme, so small complications pop up more often.
The character progression checklist also looks straight up from an Apocalypse World character sheet (in a good way!). [Edit 2: I learned that the checklist might be similar to Apocalypse World, but there’s this whole card system where each level involves choosing new feats or abilities or things like that, all related to your class]
Standing by! Haha
-
I run a table. One of the people at the table insisted that I checked out Daggerheart. So I did. And I was very pleasantly surprised.
Why? Well, I admit I had some prejudices against it. First, I sort of made up my mind when I saw the whole licensing issue, Daggerheart basically doing what Wizards of the Coast did with Dungeons and Dragons. But not only that, I also saw red flags in Daggerheart itself: minis.
I saw a video for Daggerheart where the thumbnail showed minis. I was out. I find minis so frustrating. They are in my list of things that I cannot care about. I care about dramatic stories, not combat simulation. I care about intrigue and character growth, not arithmetic. I saw that and assumed that Daggerheart was a combat simulator just like Dungeons and Dragons is. I didn’t even pay attention.
But then my friend insisted that I read about Daggerheart. And so I did.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that minis are optional. Even more importantly, I was shocked to find a game that effectively is Powered by the Apocalypse. I was especially relieved to not find rules for movement that require trigonometry or strange approximations (unlike Dungeons and Dragons, where there are grids and numbers everywhere).
I found a game that prioritized drama. Yes, it still simulates combat, but it does so in such a simple way that makes me happy to run it.
I’m excited! This would be the first game that I ever play when the game is just released. This would be the first game in which I don’t even have to pitch to the table; the table already wants to play it.
Of course, these are my first impressions. Maybe they’ll change. For now, I’m happy.
I have a friend who’s looking at developing a series on new DM’s entering Daggerheart. I’m really curious to see how the game waxes while Hasbro seems intent on making 5e wane.
I personally really enjoy 5e for casual play, and would probably play Pathfinder with a great roleplaying party. Not sure about Daggerheart, but curious if it grows on me. Hasbro seems intent on forcing D&D into a subscription model, and the CR people have a real opening here.
-
That’s cool, I didn’t realise PbtA was such a broad term in its own right. I’ve played a little Dungeon World and others, but not enough to know the background of all that.
Compared to Dungeon World, the Hope/Fear counters are a difference.
I’m not sure where they got it from. To me it seems somewhat like Fate points.
-
Huh. Thanks for sharing. I’m totally up for critically evaluating Critical Role and Daggerheart.
I do agree that Critical Role’s play style was a bit like a square peg in a round hole. Other games could’ve been more appropriate for them. Arguably a more appropriate game for them is Daggerheart.
As to not letting your personal feelings about Critical Role cloud my judgement, thanks for caring about not biasing me. At the same time, I’m sure you have good reasons to be critical of Daggerheart. Understanding why we say what we say sounds like a good plan, and I’m curious to hear what you think:
What is it about Daggerheart that makes you think it’s nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand?
thanks for caring about not biasing me
Games are games, I try not to yuck anyone’s yum.
What is it about Daggerheart that makes you think it’s nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand?
I think that if you look at campaign 2 and 3 of Critical Role — there is a very clear decline in quality. This decline in quality has retroactively permeated things like Legend of Vox Machina (Pike, the cleric, suddenly deciding ‘Gods r bad’. Very clearly mimicking the poor narrative decisions Matt has made.).
Now, I don’t know if Daggerheart is bad — really it just sounds like it’s a platform for improv performance, which I don’t dislike! I also think you’re right on the money about the square peg in the round hole. I think what I need to see from Daggerheart is that it’s worth the amount of effort they put into it, considering how they’ve treated their DnD campaigns.
TL;DR — it’s hard for me to separate the lack of quality in CR’s recent campaigns from Daggerheart. I gave up on CR a long time ago, Daggerheart needs to prove itself to me, and can’t be through CR.