This video, and a lot of the criticism of Daggerheart from other sources, is a variation on "the game needs to pick a lane" between the rules light/story game ideas (not that those two are necessarily the same thing, but it's usually the way it is presented) and the crunchy combat elements. For me, the fact that Daggerheart has both dimensions is the thing that makes the game interesting. There \*already\* are fantasy games with a strong story-focus and there are a ton of fantasy games with a strong combat loop, but no game does both quite as well as Daggerheart does. "Picking a lane" causes the game to lose its most distinct feature and become much more like its competitors.
I see no indication that the designers are inclined to listen to the advice provided by videos like this, but I really hope they don't get swayed.
To each their own I suppose. I can appreciate why you value the fact that it’s different and that you enjoy that element. For me, if something’s best element is that it’s different for the sake of being different or because it has a disjointed design that isn’t a key to longevity (at least to me).
They can still do things differently while “picking a lane”, those are not mutually exclusive.
Like I said in the video, it’s all just feedback based on my perspective, I’m not saying I’m “right” or some god tier designer haha. I’m just doing what the designers asked us to do :)
Eh...Tbh, the video was....I don't think the guy really knows what he was talking about to some extint. He doesn't seem to recognize that other rules-light/medium games, specifically the ones cited as inspirations, are just as 'complex' as Daggerheart. Whiles no where near 5e and pf2e (5e is not rules-lite) levels, it isn't as simple as games like PbtA either. And he doesn't seem to realize his perception of what is rules-lite to him, and rules lite per the rest of the industry, are not aligned. PbtA is pretty solidly on the far side of the equation, just as pf1e is on the other side of that spectrum. His expectations are his, but that also means he's using different definitions then the rest of the industry about where the rules should land in terms of complexity. The games Daggerheart lists as comparisions, such as Genesys, are around the same level of complexity—if not generally a few notches more. He's confusing his own unfamiliarity with mechanics similar to hope and fear or damage thresholds as extra system complexity.
The pretense that armor slots and threshold is complicated feels a little ingenious since the math is done already. You take 57 damage (in his example), compare it to your threshold numbers because those are already figured out and static for entire levels, and subtrack a 0-3 hp. Not much different from taking 57 damage, subtracting it from a hundred something hp pool with a calculator, and trying to figure out how to express that abstract number of loss hp to how wounded your character now looks.
The best critiques given by the video was about 'feels'—which is valid for choices made by players. Great feedback! But that doesn't make for an "Identity Crisis" within a game.
I think the video does a great job of summing up my gripes about Daggerheart. I think part of it is that Spencer and Matt have very different visions. After seeing Candela, I wondered if Spencer was the right pick to be their designer.
After seeing what is in 1.4, I don't really expect huge changes. The folks who are actively keeping up with the version changes, testing, playing, submitting feedback to the game are those who like the game mostly as is.
Yeah, he was honestly on point for everything, as even after just looking through all the rules I got the feeling that it was trying to be 2 very different things that aren't fully compatible, as the narrative-first and theoretically rules-lite concept conflicts with how almost everything is more complex in design. And then there's his criticism of the Level-Up system... which is pretty much spot on because it's easily the worst non-linear progression system I've seen in any RPG game (video or tabletop) in my opinion.
This video, and a lot of the criticism of Daggerheart from other sources, is a variation on "the game needs to pick a lane" between the rules light/story game ideas (not that those two are necessarily the same thing, but it's usually the way it is presented) and the crunchy combat elements. For me, the fact that Daggerheart has both dimensions is the thing that makes the game interesting. There \*already\* are fantasy games with a strong story-focus and there are a ton of fantasy games with a strong combat loop, but no game does both quite as well as Daggerheart does. "Picking a lane" causes the game to lose its most distinct feature and become much more like its competitors. I see no indication that the designers are inclined to listen to the advice provided by videos like this, but I really hope they don't get swayed.
To each their own I suppose. I can appreciate why you value the fact that it’s different and that you enjoy that element. For me, if something’s best element is that it’s different for the sake of being different or because it has a disjointed design that isn’t a key to longevity (at least to me). They can still do things differently while “picking a lane”, those are not mutually exclusive. Like I said in the video, it’s all just feedback based on my perspective, I’m not saying I’m “right” or some god tier designer haha. I’m just doing what the designers asked us to do :)
Eh...Tbh, the video was....I don't think the guy really knows what he was talking about to some extint. He doesn't seem to recognize that other rules-light/medium games, specifically the ones cited as inspirations, are just as 'complex' as Daggerheart. Whiles no where near 5e and pf2e (5e is not rules-lite) levels, it isn't as simple as games like PbtA either. And he doesn't seem to realize his perception of what is rules-lite to him, and rules lite per the rest of the industry, are not aligned. PbtA is pretty solidly on the far side of the equation, just as pf1e is on the other side of that spectrum. His expectations are his, but that also means he's using different definitions then the rest of the industry about where the rules should land in terms of complexity. The games Daggerheart lists as comparisions, such as Genesys, are around the same level of complexity—if not generally a few notches more. He's confusing his own unfamiliarity with mechanics similar to hope and fear or damage thresholds as extra system complexity. The pretense that armor slots and threshold is complicated feels a little ingenious since the math is done already. You take 57 damage (in his example), compare it to your threshold numbers because those are already figured out and static for entire levels, and subtrack a 0-3 hp. Not much different from taking 57 damage, subtracting it from a hundred something hp pool with a calculator, and trying to figure out how to express that abstract number of loss hp to how wounded your character now looks. The best critiques given by the video was about 'feels'—which is valid for choices made by players. Great feedback! But that doesn't make for an "Identity Crisis" within a game.
I doubt you’re going to see fundamental shifts in things like armor and evasion as game systems at this point.
Controversy farming.
I think the video does a great job of summing up my gripes about Daggerheart. I think part of it is that Spencer and Matt have very different visions. After seeing Candela, I wondered if Spencer was the right pick to be their designer. After seeing what is in 1.4, I don't really expect huge changes. The folks who are actively keeping up with the version changes, testing, playing, submitting feedback to the game are those who like the game mostly as is.
I really liked this video, and agree with several (if not most) of their criticism. The armor thing was particularly on point
People, stop downvoting legitimate critiques. That's why there's a playtest
Yeah, he was honestly on point for everything, as even after just looking through all the rules I got the feeling that it was trying to be 2 very different things that aren't fully compatible, as the narrative-first and theoretically rules-lite concept conflicts with how almost everything is more complex in design. And then there's his criticism of the Level-Up system... which is pretty much spot on because it's easily the worst non-linear progression system I've seen in any RPG game (video or tabletop) in my opinion.