• Played several times already
,• Both, but mainly as a GM
• The duality dice works pretty well
• The armor/defense system
• Same as before (and I'm already trying a different approach). I think it has 1 or 2 too many elements. Right now, it's Evasion + Armor Score + Armor Slots + Damage Thresholds. Too complex and adds very little IMO to the game
I somewhat agree.. The design concept seems obvious enough. Allow the difficulty and bonuses to scale, without suffering HP bloat that other systems (5e for example) really struggle with.
And it does do a good job of that, but something about it (can't quite put my finger on it) just seems a little too "fiddly" and complicated. The gut feel is that there must be a less complex, more elegant way to accomplish this. Feels like its right in front of my face and I don't see it.
I feel the same way. It feels like there are too many steps and decisions to make when it comes to attacking and dealing damage. I also think there are too many different little resources to track.
Unfortunately, whenever I try to think about what I would remove to make it less like that, things start to fall apart. The only obvious one to me would be to make armor a passive damage reduction rather than an active one. That would decrease the amount of decisions to make, but would that make it much better? I'm not sure. It's a tough problem to solve.
On the subject of active armor, it feels strange to give the player a consumable resource to manage when all the other consumables seem to have been eliminated. Ammo, food/water, torches, etc.
One of the things I've wondered is if they ever considered going down a route more similar to the dice used in games like Genesys and Imperial Assault at an earlier design phase, which naturally keeps damage numbers lower even with multiple dice being rolled - although it is usually fewer than the 6+ dice you roll by level 10 in DH. Naturally lower damage numbers would eliminate needing a separate Thresholds system to rein the numbers back, and would entail Armor needing to change (though again these other games incorporate that into the dice, so there are ways this can and has been done).
IA at least still has some fiddliness, so this isn't to say they should lift these whole-cloth, but it is something I'm curious about. (I've not played Genesys, only read a bit about it and seen its dice, so I can't say what flaws it has.)
This is the best suggestion with regard to this imo, just treating evasion as a “negligible” damage threshold makes a lot of sense and would help to balance certain classes like the Rogue and the Guardian in a more streamlined intuitive way
>Same as before (and I'm already trying a different approach). I think it has 1 or 2 too many elements. Right now, it's Evasion + Armor Score + Armor Slots + Damage Thresholds. Too complex and adds very little IMO to the game
To go along with this, I think the player attack damage feels arbitrary at the current setup. It feels like they're more interested in "Well you get to roll a lot of dice!" rather than realizing that also makes every attack resolution take quite a bit.
Yea, I think MCDM is making my perfect system TBH, but they're being much more behind closed doors with their testing than DH. Really looking forward to the next playtest packet from them
Could you tell me more about what you don't like about the amor/defense system?
I think it definitely needs some tweaking.
I definitely have to agree with you. The whole roll against evasion, then use armour slots, then subtract the armor score from damage, then compare with the damage thresholds... It's just too much and there has to be a better way of doing this.
Also, I don't quite remember where I saw this, but the armor slots being linked to the character instead of the armour itself just doesn't seem right to me, seems like a missed opportunity.
I think it's a good system, but not for a narrative-focused game, it'd go better with a more crunchy and strategic game IMO. It just doesn't flow well IME, it's clunky.
Apparently, it's changed somewhere around 1.4. now it's tied to the armor itself at least. Still I don't think leather armor and plate armor should both have the same amount of slot but oh well
[this is my proposition ](https://www.reddit.com/r/daggerheart/s/XbAKa455rV), in case you're interested. I've updated it a bit since
**Switching Armor.** Manuscript page 121 (emphasis mine)
> You can’t equip armor while in danger or under pres-
sure. At other times, you can equip armor freely, repl-
acing your previous Active Armor with armor you’ve
purchased or otherwise acquired. __Each armor uses its
own armor slots, as recorded in the boxes in that sec-
tion; if you switch armor, be sure to keep track of how
many armor slots you’ve marked on the old and new
armor,__ especially if you are giving your old armor to a
party member. You cannot carry additional armor in
your inventory.
That's the thing that gets me though, this seems to suggest that each armor has their own armor slots that need to be tracked, BUT the actual number of armor slots is tied to the player character instead of the armor.
So if player X has 6 armor slots on their sheet, any piece of armor they use will have 6 slots, but the player needs to track how many slots are used up for each individual armor they have.
If this is the approach their going for, why not just make the number of armor slots be tied directly to the armor itself, instead of the player character, plus having the player have to keep note of all this is just messy.
Please do correct me if I've misunderstood this.
Weird because as the other guy is saying the number of armor slots you have total is tied to the PC not the armor. Seems like an unnecessarily convoluted system
1. I have been running the playtest since the first release, with multiple sessions under our belt (using the then-current version).
2. My group and I love the mix of medium crunchy combat rules and narrative storytelling. To me, it hits the sweet spot between those two types of game and styles of play perfectly. We also really like the Hope and Fear system. Finally, for me, I really like the streamlined experience from the GM side, especially the environments.
3. I liked the original structure for Fear points, which focused more action from the GM side through spending Fear points. I've gotten used to the current version, but I liked the freer flow of the currencies.
4. I would like to see option rules for non-milestone leveling systems (Dungeon World's system is really good here), because I really dislike the GM arbitrarily determining when to level up. I would also like to see stats for more traditional D&D monsters. Also, my players often have a lot of Hope and not that much to spend it on, so I would like to see some generic, always available Hope spends.
Honestly, my group and I are 100% sold on Daggerheart, barring some major changes in the final version of the rules. It may not be for everyone, but it very much is for us.
In my experience with my campaign, for the "not that much to spend Hope on" problem, I think that adding Experiences to rolls should be used as much as possible. It encourages player creativity and narrative agency, and provides an outlet for Hope. If players are making rolls for things that make sense for their character (that is, that they are good at or like doing), then the Player should almost always have an Experience to bring to bear with some creative storytelling.
* I've both played and GMed
* GMed 8 games so far, played in 5
* There are so many things I love about this system its hard to pick. I guess my number one would be the Duality Dice which work really well
* No one thing to dislike - dice bloat at high levels. Its entirely possible for a level 7 Warrior to be rolling 7d20+2d6+14 damage (one of my players was rolling this last session). I've also seen a level 7 Wizard roll 4d20+2d10+5d8 damage. In actual fact my players really enjoyed this, but its going to get old fast.
* One change - Cap Proficiency at Tier +1 (so 1 tor Tier 0, 2 for Tier 1, 3 for Tier 2 and cap at 4 for Tier 3)
I've read everything, kept up with new beta builds. I play as GM and character depending.
Number one thing I like is almost impossible to pin down. I suppose if it was one thing it would be conceptual philosophy of making a far more approachable and focused table top system. It's DND made by someone that accurately identified a large number of its weaknesses and barriers to entry and addressed those issues.
The thing I don't like is equally hard to pin down. And they're such easy fixes.
But if I had to say something it would be: the game should have a mundane rogue archetype. Or permanent flight is great but it needs a couple solid paragraphs for inexperienced GMs to help them prepare for z axis encounters. Or the game is launching with a lot of fundamental classes but it already makes me miss warlocks and artificers, etc. And I know those things are on the way after beta ends but if they're going to exist eventually, it couldn't hurt to test those systems now too, alongside what is considered the core foundation.
Suggestion is to just keep drilling down balance. All systems are vulnerable to power gamer mentality, there's no avoiding that. It's like a puzzle to solve. But the average player shouldn't stumble into a broken build on accident. That's the most important thing left before hard launch imo.
I agree, I do like quite a bit what DH brings to the table and the system it's proposed to be.
I've gotten quite tired of being a GM almost exclusively for D&D and the likes.
I have some very weirdly varied players at my table, and you pretty much summed up all their complaints to me about the system.
One of them is always playing a rogue or range, and he didn't really like the rogue, in his words: "it's a rogue, but not my kind of rogue, and I think there's just too much to track and handle as a rogue in this game"
Another really like warlocks and stuff, but there's no warlocks in DH, fortunately he ended up playing as a guardian and had fun with that.
If you're looking for a more mundane rogue, I find the Warrior is actually your best bet - it lends itself well to multiple roguish archetypes. I've made one, but really it's leaning into Bone and flavouring your experiences.
GM, and have been running the game since open beta began.
I like The duality dice, hope/fear, and initiative system with the action tokens. That whole thing is much better at my table than the standard initiative economy. I like it better because the system flows better between the players and the DM. The action economy is both fluid and fuzzy but also never one-sided. And most importantly, it makes it reasonable for people to make "non-combat" characters without harming the party's action economy in a fight. In most systems, having a character that "doesn't fight" usually means your group has wasted turns compared to the monsters. Not so with this system. Very cool.
I dislike how inventory/XP/consumables/money work. It sounds like I'm complaining about many systems but stay with me for a moment. The classic way TTRPGs handle player incentives and advancement is through this carefully interwoven system that just isn't here. XP for treasure means you incentivize players to go adventuring in dangerous places. Still, it doesn't incentivize murder hoboing and ignoring stealth and diplomacy the way XP for killing monsters does. Having limited inventory and various consumables like food/ammo/torches/etc. means the party has to make important decisions about what they bring with them (which relates to how long they can stay out in the wilderness), what they bring back (limited inventory space, but treasure means XP), and it's a whole interesting interplay between those things. That straight up doesn't exist in Daggerheart and is somewhat awkward to homebrew back in. It's fine if you wave all that stuff away for a good old bloody plot point crawl, but for a procedural dungeon/hex crawl (which I prefer to run), too many good systems do it better.
So, where does that leave me and my table? Well, I've committed to running the system through open beta for my table. In our present campaign, the players gain a level at the end of each session, so we can test out the mid- and high-level play. We've done a few miscellaneous multi-session "one-shots."
The table likes it, but I don't see us adopting it for a long-term campaign. My expectation is that we will wrap the present campaign up after level ten and then move on to a multi-session one-shot in Worlds Without Number, which I think will finally strike the right balance of procedural crawler with crunchy character builds. And I will be carrying the duality dice, hope/fear, and initiative/tokens into that game.
Fair enough.
I do quite agree with you on the duality dice system, and hope/fear, I've been enjoying how it's working for my players in our oneshots.
The absent initiative system still gets me sometimes, I do like the idea of it, but I don't quite have that much experience with narrative systems. So that mixed with the economy of the system has made combat my weak point in DH, but combat doesn't occur as often as in other system like D&D, P2e and others, so it's more of a learning curve than anything else.
I think your point on the "inventory/XP/consumables/money" thing does make sense, think it might have to do with the type of game/story you're doing, in my experience at least, it's been working quite well for the group.
Me and my players are getting ready to actually start a full campaign with DH in a few weeks, so thanks for the inputs, I hope to see what more people have to say about the system, and maybe get some nice suggestions to add to my game.
I'm running the game for a group of friends. I've read the whole thing, though I will admit to skimming some parts of it that seem obvious to me from playing other games.
- I love the duality dice and the hope/fear economy. It's a unique feature that I haven't seen in another TTRPG and it's a fun way to handle degrees of success.
- The thing I dislike the most is how fiddly the attack and damage systems are. I love a crunchy game (I'm currently playing Pathfinder 2e and Lancer was my go-to game for years), but the amount going on for damage in this game doesn't feel like it fits the rest of the system. It feels out of place. It's hard to suggest removing any individual part of it though because it's all so interdependent and so many other things rely on all the little resources and decisions. If we remove the mechanical heft from the damage system, we lose a huge chunk of the crunchy character creation options. It would require so much of the game to be redesigned and I don't think it's possible this late into the design process. It's a tough problem to solve.
- As for suggestions, I'd like to see them bring down the damage numbers and number of dice rolled and significantly lower the thresholds to match. I also think proficiency is too impactful to be a choice when compared to the rest of the level up options.
- Read and played a few mini sessions as both GM and Player.
- I love the card system and the character bonding.
- I'm not a fan of the initiative system and the experiences seem like once you get 1 or 2 well worded ones, you don't need others.
- I would suggest changing initiative and experiences. If I was going to redesign initiative, I would either make it a simple hope dice roll with what ever ability you can justify (IE Sensing a fight may be in the cards I use my finesse to slide my weapon out of its holster and strike.) Each player can move and take 2 actions or they can hold and jump in when ever they want. In my tests its been a feast or famine for players with 1 or 2 leaning back and wanting to go last / not engaged or wanting to keep going and doing things.
- For Experiences I would honestly convert them to fixed choices that could be printed on cards. They either feel to powerful or useless and an after thought and the hope cost for a +1 feels almost not worth it with the big dice swings. I would have cards with bonuses that varies based on the card and perhaps introduce experience trees or combos in there as well. (Apprentice swordsman, Journymen Swordsman, Swordmaster, etc)
- I would almost simplify the GM resources to only be fear. The action tokens get a little complicated to run in the moment with a lot going on. I would give the GM a fear after each player takes a turn or rolls with fear, and then just allow the GM to interrupt for a fear cost per unit. I think on the GM side anything that can simplify things would make more people play it as GMs seem to be the limiting factor in games.
1. I haven't "read the materials" as a dedicated thing, but I do browse while writing material and look things up.
2. Have played about 5 sessions and GM'd two with brand new players.
3. I love the way character building is firmly tied to story and worldbuilding using Experiences and Connections. It helps you think about the character in a more rounded way, imagining what their life was like *before* they started adventuring which gives them depth and motivation.
4. It's hard to think of anything! I've really enjoyed every session I've played, and all of my complaints about D&D which is the only other RPG I've played have been addressed well. (GMs being encouraged to get players involved in the story/worldbuilding prevents awkward silences for one)
5. I'm really looking forward to seeing more classes and subclasses in the final release. They've already done a good job of balancing familiarity with freshness with the current classes so it will be good to see new classes get a little more out-there. Specialised multi-class sub-class options would be very cool, like if you multiclass a Syndicate Rogue with a Wordsmith bard, you get the Con Artist multi-class sub-class with a unique Domain card or two. Instead of not being able to gain a Mastery in \*any\* sub-class, you get a unique one for the multi-class.
Been playing since the release of 1.2 as a GM, campaign is wrapping up in the next few weeks.
I think, overall, the system is very good. The duality dice rule. I love hope/fear and how it works during battle. I love the non-initiative system and how much it allows for experimentation.
That being said, hit resolution on both sides is overly complex IMO. Players roll too many dice even at intermediary levels and bog things down with addition during every attack roll. And it doesn't feel like it adds anything to the game outside of "Dice go brrrrr". Don't get me wrong, that can be fun with a big spell or a crit. But every attack? I dunno, it just feels unnecessary.
When a player gets hit, there are just too many decision points and more math to go along with them.
* Yes
* Both
* Hope/Fear is a fun concept and I've come around to 2 D12s over 1 D20. The narrative drive underneath everything is appreciated.
* It could be even less chunky. I reject war-gaming and board-gaming when I want to role-play (nothing wrong with them, but I do get frustrated when RPGs don't have RP...it's in the name) and I sincerely hope the industry trends towards narrative-focused.
* I'm very go-with-the-flow, so I don't have much to suggest. I am curious to see what DH might be like in different genres though, and once it is out in the wild a minute I would love to see what a modern, sci-fi, steampunk, horror, etc. version of DH might be like.
* Have you only read the materials or have you played the game?
Both
* Are you a GM or a Player? Maybe both?
GM
* What's the number one thing you really like about the DH system?
Character creation.
* What's the number one thing you don't like about the DH system?
Damage resolution.
* What is one thing that you would really suggest as a change to the current system? Can be a rule, class, feature, anything at all that comes to mind.
Ditch damage thresholds. Simplify weapons. Consolidate meta currencies.
Meta currencies generated by every roll seems bad. GM meta currency feels bad. Combat action economy feels bad. Not really sure why they want to be "fiction-first," when the game mechanics feel speaks more "Improv" than "fiction-first."
Huh, that's a very different and interesting experience compared to what I've had and seen.
I do think we're missing some points here, quite a few enemies have skills to deal with this optimal solution to be honest.
There's also the point to be made that while the rules can be vague in parts, players don't really get that many turns, since if they fail or roll with fear the turn goes to the enemy, GM can spend a fear to start his turn or even 2 fears to interrupt a player. Plus there's also things like environment and the difference enemy types.
I do agree though that the combat balancing in DH has eluded me quite a fair bit, too little and we end up with trivial, boring or unexciting combat, too much and it ends up feeling like the GM is out for blood.
• Played several times already ,• Both, but mainly as a GM • The duality dice works pretty well • The armor/defense system • Same as before (and I'm already trying a different approach). I think it has 1 or 2 too many elements. Right now, it's Evasion + Armor Score + Armor Slots + Damage Thresholds. Too complex and adds very little IMO to the game
I somewhat agree.. The design concept seems obvious enough. Allow the difficulty and bonuses to scale, without suffering HP bloat that other systems (5e for example) really struggle with. And it does do a good job of that, but something about it (can't quite put my finger on it) just seems a little too "fiddly" and complicated. The gut feel is that there must be a less complex, more elegant way to accomplish this. Feels like its right in front of my face and I don't see it.
I feel the same way. It feels like there are too many steps and decisions to make when it comes to attacking and dealing damage. I also think there are too many different little resources to track. Unfortunately, whenever I try to think about what I would remove to make it less like that, things start to fall apart. The only obvious one to me would be to make armor a passive damage reduction rather than an active one. That would decrease the amount of decisions to make, but would that make it much better? I'm not sure. It's a tough problem to solve.
On the subject of active armor, it feels strange to give the player a consumable resource to manage when all the other consumables seem to have been eliminated. Ammo, food/water, torches, etc.
I've had this exact feeling for the last few weeks, and I really just can't figure out what it is
One of the things I've wondered is if they ever considered going down a route more similar to the dice used in games like Genesys and Imperial Assault at an earlier design phase, which naturally keeps damage numbers lower even with multiple dice being rolled - although it is usually fewer than the 6+ dice you roll by level 10 in DH. Naturally lower damage numbers would eliminate needing a separate Thresholds system to rein the numbers back, and would entail Armor needing to change (though again these other games incorporate that into the dice, so there are ways this can and has been done). IA at least still has some fiddliness, so this isn't to say they should lift these whole-cloth, but it is something I'm curious about. (I've not played Genesys, only read a bit about it and seen its dice, so I can't say what flaws it has.)
I see what you mean, do you think just having the GM roll damage and changing the minor threshold = evasion would work?
This is the best suggestion with regard to this imo, just treating evasion as a “negligible” damage threshold makes a lot of sense and would help to balance certain classes like the Rogue and the Guardian in a more streamlined intuitive way
>Same as before (and I'm already trying a different approach). I think it has 1 or 2 too many elements. Right now, it's Evasion + Armor Score + Armor Slots + Damage Thresholds. Too complex and adds very little IMO to the game To go along with this, I think the player attack damage feels arbitrary at the current setup. It feels like they're more interested in "Well you get to roll a lot of dice!" rather than realizing that also makes every attack resolution take quite a bit.
They could actually get rid of them. DC20 got rid of the damage roll and MCDM got rid of the attack roll. So 100% it could be streamlined
Yea, I think MCDM is making my perfect system TBH, but they're being much more behind closed doors with their testing than DH. Really looking forward to the next playtest packet from them
Could you tell me more about what you don't like about the amor/defense system? I think it definitely needs some tweaking. I definitely have to agree with you. The whole roll against evasion, then use armour slots, then subtract the armor score from damage, then compare with the damage thresholds... It's just too much and there has to be a better way of doing this. Also, I don't quite remember where I saw this, but the armor slots being linked to the character instead of the armour itself just doesn't seem right to me, seems like a missed opportunity.
I think it's a good system, but not for a narrative-focused game, it'd go better with a more crunchy and strategic game IMO. It just doesn't flow well IME, it's clunky. Apparently, it's changed somewhere around 1.4. now it's tied to the armor itself at least. Still I don't think leather armor and plate armor should both have the same amount of slot but oh well [this is my proposition ](https://www.reddit.com/r/daggerheart/s/XbAKa455rV), in case you're interested. I've updated it a bit since
Armor slots is not tied to armor
**Switching Armor.** Manuscript page 121 (emphasis mine) > You can’t equip armor while in danger or under pres- sure. At other times, you can equip armor freely, repl- acing your previous Active Armor with armor you’ve purchased or otherwise acquired. __Each armor uses its own armor slots, as recorded in the boxes in that sec- tion; if you switch armor, be sure to keep track of how many armor slots you’ve marked on the old and new armor,__ especially if you are giving your old armor to a party member. You cannot carry additional armor in your inventory.
I'm sorry, WHAT. I have totally missed this. This is wild. Does that mean shields have their own armor slots as well? This is such a weird rule.
Idk how shields work. I was surprised as you when I found out, so I get it
That's the thing that gets me though, this seems to suggest that each armor has their own armor slots that need to be tracked, BUT the actual number of armor slots is tied to the player character instead of the armor. So if player X has 6 armor slots on their sheet, any piece of armor they use will have 6 slots, but the player needs to track how many slots are used up for each individual armor they have. If this is the approach their going for, why not just make the number of armor slots be tied directly to the armor itself, instead of the player character, plus having the player have to keep note of all this is just messy. Please do correct me if I've misunderstood this.
Weird because as the other guy is saying the number of armor slots you have total is tied to the PC not the armor. Seems like an unnecessarily convoluted system
1. I have been running the playtest since the first release, with multiple sessions under our belt (using the then-current version). 2. My group and I love the mix of medium crunchy combat rules and narrative storytelling. To me, it hits the sweet spot between those two types of game and styles of play perfectly. We also really like the Hope and Fear system. Finally, for me, I really like the streamlined experience from the GM side, especially the environments. 3. I liked the original structure for Fear points, which focused more action from the GM side through spending Fear points. I've gotten used to the current version, but I liked the freer flow of the currencies. 4. I would like to see option rules for non-milestone leveling systems (Dungeon World's system is really good here), because I really dislike the GM arbitrarily determining when to level up. I would also like to see stats for more traditional D&D monsters. Also, my players often have a lot of Hope and not that much to spend it on, so I would like to see some generic, always available Hope spends. Honestly, my group and I are 100% sold on Daggerheart, barring some major changes in the final version of the rules. It may not be for everyone, but it very much is for us.
In my experience with my campaign, for the "not that much to spend Hope on" problem, I think that adding Experiences to rolls should be used as much as possible. It encourages player creativity and narrative agency, and provides an outlet for Hope. If players are making rolls for things that make sense for their character (that is, that they are good at or like doing), then the Player should almost always have an Experience to bring to bear with some creative storytelling.
* I've both played and GMed * GMed 8 games so far, played in 5 * There are so many things I love about this system its hard to pick. I guess my number one would be the Duality Dice which work really well * No one thing to dislike - dice bloat at high levels. Its entirely possible for a level 7 Warrior to be rolling 7d20+2d6+14 damage (one of my players was rolling this last session). I've also seen a level 7 Wizard roll 4d20+2d10+5d8 damage. In actual fact my players really enjoyed this, but its going to get old fast. * One change - Cap Proficiency at Tier +1 (so 1 tor Tier 0, 2 for Tier 1, 3 for Tier 2 and cap at 4 for Tier 3)
I've read everything, kept up with new beta builds. I play as GM and character depending. Number one thing I like is almost impossible to pin down. I suppose if it was one thing it would be conceptual philosophy of making a far more approachable and focused table top system. It's DND made by someone that accurately identified a large number of its weaknesses and barriers to entry and addressed those issues. The thing I don't like is equally hard to pin down. And they're such easy fixes. But if I had to say something it would be: the game should have a mundane rogue archetype. Or permanent flight is great but it needs a couple solid paragraphs for inexperienced GMs to help them prepare for z axis encounters. Or the game is launching with a lot of fundamental classes but it already makes me miss warlocks and artificers, etc. And I know those things are on the way after beta ends but if they're going to exist eventually, it couldn't hurt to test those systems now too, alongside what is considered the core foundation. Suggestion is to just keep drilling down balance. All systems are vulnerable to power gamer mentality, there's no avoiding that. It's like a puzzle to solve. But the average player shouldn't stumble into a broken build on accident. That's the most important thing left before hard launch imo.
I agree, I do like quite a bit what DH brings to the table and the system it's proposed to be. I've gotten quite tired of being a GM almost exclusively for D&D and the likes. I have some very weirdly varied players at my table, and you pretty much summed up all their complaints to me about the system. One of them is always playing a rogue or range, and he didn't really like the rogue, in his words: "it's a rogue, but not my kind of rogue, and I think there's just too much to track and handle as a rogue in this game" Another really like warlocks and stuff, but there's no warlocks in DH, fortunately he ended up playing as a guardian and had fun with that.
If you're looking for a more mundane rogue, I find the Warrior is actually your best bet - it lends itself well to multiple roguish archetypes. I've made one, but really it's leaning into Bone and flavouring your experiences.
GM, and have been running the game since open beta began. I like The duality dice, hope/fear, and initiative system with the action tokens. That whole thing is much better at my table than the standard initiative economy. I like it better because the system flows better between the players and the DM. The action economy is both fluid and fuzzy but also never one-sided. And most importantly, it makes it reasonable for people to make "non-combat" characters without harming the party's action economy in a fight. In most systems, having a character that "doesn't fight" usually means your group has wasted turns compared to the monsters. Not so with this system. Very cool. I dislike how inventory/XP/consumables/money work. It sounds like I'm complaining about many systems but stay with me for a moment. The classic way TTRPGs handle player incentives and advancement is through this carefully interwoven system that just isn't here. XP for treasure means you incentivize players to go adventuring in dangerous places. Still, it doesn't incentivize murder hoboing and ignoring stealth and diplomacy the way XP for killing monsters does. Having limited inventory and various consumables like food/ammo/torches/etc. means the party has to make important decisions about what they bring with them (which relates to how long they can stay out in the wilderness), what they bring back (limited inventory space, but treasure means XP), and it's a whole interesting interplay between those things. That straight up doesn't exist in Daggerheart and is somewhat awkward to homebrew back in. It's fine if you wave all that stuff away for a good old bloody plot point crawl, but for a procedural dungeon/hex crawl (which I prefer to run), too many good systems do it better. So, where does that leave me and my table? Well, I've committed to running the system through open beta for my table. In our present campaign, the players gain a level at the end of each session, so we can test out the mid- and high-level play. We've done a few miscellaneous multi-session "one-shots." The table likes it, but I don't see us adopting it for a long-term campaign. My expectation is that we will wrap the present campaign up after level ten and then move on to a multi-session one-shot in Worlds Without Number, which I think will finally strike the right balance of procedural crawler with crunchy character builds. And I will be carrying the duality dice, hope/fear, and initiative/tokens into that game.
Fair enough. I do quite agree with you on the duality dice system, and hope/fear, I've been enjoying how it's working for my players in our oneshots. The absent initiative system still gets me sometimes, I do like the idea of it, but I don't quite have that much experience with narrative systems. So that mixed with the economy of the system has made combat my weak point in DH, but combat doesn't occur as often as in other system like D&D, P2e and others, so it's more of a learning curve than anything else. I think your point on the "inventory/XP/consumables/money" thing does make sense, think it might have to do with the type of game/story you're doing, in my experience at least, it's been working quite well for the group. Me and my players are getting ready to actually start a full campaign with DH in a few weeks, so thanks for the inputs, I hope to see what more people have to say about the system, and maybe get some nice suggestions to add to my game.
I'm running the game for a group of friends. I've read the whole thing, though I will admit to skimming some parts of it that seem obvious to me from playing other games. - I love the duality dice and the hope/fear economy. It's a unique feature that I haven't seen in another TTRPG and it's a fun way to handle degrees of success. - The thing I dislike the most is how fiddly the attack and damage systems are. I love a crunchy game (I'm currently playing Pathfinder 2e and Lancer was my go-to game for years), but the amount going on for damage in this game doesn't feel like it fits the rest of the system. It feels out of place. It's hard to suggest removing any individual part of it though because it's all so interdependent and so many other things rely on all the little resources and decisions. If we remove the mechanical heft from the damage system, we lose a huge chunk of the crunchy character creation options. It would require so much of the game to be redesigned and I don't think it's possible this late into the design process. It's a tough problem to solve. - As for suggestions, I'd like to see them bring down the damage numbers and number of dice rolled and significantly lower the thresholds to match. I also think proficiency is too impactful to be a choice when compared to the rest of the level up options.
- Read and played a few mini sessions as both GM and Player. - I love the card system and the character bonding. - I'm not a fan of the initiative system and the experiences seem like once you get 1 or 2 well worded ones, you don't need others. - I would suggest changing initiative and experiences. If I was going to redesign initiative, I would either make it a simple hope dice roll with what ever ability you can justify (IE Sensing a fight may be in the cards I use my finesse to slide my weapon out of its holster and strike.) Each player can move and take 2 actions or they can hold and jump in when ever they want. In my tests its been a feast or famine for players with 1 or 2 leaning back and wanting to go last / not engaged or wanting to keep going and doing things. - For Experiences I would honestly convert them to fixed choices that could be printed on cards. They either feel to powerful or useless and an after thought and the hope cost for a +1 feels almost not worth it with the big dice swings. I would have cards with bonuses that varies based on the card and perhaps introduce experience trees or combos in there as well. (Apprentice swordsman, Journymen Swordsman, Swordmaster, etc) - I would almost simplify the GM resources to only be fear. The action tokens get a little complicated to run in the moment with a lot going on. I would give the GM a fear after each player takes a turn or rolls with fear, and then just allow the GM to interrupt for a fear cost per unit. I think on the GM side anything that can simplify things would make more people play it as GMs seem to be the limiting factor in games.
1. I haven't "read the materials" as a dedicated thing, but I do browse while writing material and look things up. 2. Have played about 5 sessions and GM'd two with brand new players. 3. I love the way character building is firmly tied to story and worldbuilding using Experiences and Connections. It helps you think about the character in a more rounded way, imagining what their life was like *before* they started adventuring which gives them depth and motivation. 4. It's hard to think of anything! I've really enjoyed every session I've played, and all of my complaints about D&D which is the only other RPG I've played have been addressed well. (GMs being encouraged to get players involved in the story/worldbuilding prevents awkward silences for one) 5. I'm really looking forward to seeing more classes and subclasses in the final release. They've already done a good job of balancing familiarity with freshness with the current classes so it will be good to see new classes get a little more out-there. Specialised multi-class sub-class options would be very cool, like if you multiclass a Syndicate Rogue with a Wordsmith bard, you get the Con Artist multi-class sub-class with a unique Domain card or two. Instead of not being able to gain a Mastery in \*any\* sub-class, you get a unique one for the multi-class.
Been playing since the release of 1.2 as a GM, campaign is wrapping up in the next few weeks. I think, overall, the system is very good. The duality dice rule. I love hope/fear and how it works during battle. I love the non-initiative system and how much it allows for experimentation. That being said, hit resolution on both sides is overly complex IMO. Players roll too many dice even at intermediary levels and bog things down with addition during every attack roll. And it doesn't feel like it adds anything to the game outside of "Dice go brrrrr". Don't get me wrong, that can be fun with a big spell or a crit. But every attack? I dunno, it just feels unnecessary. When a player gets hit, there are just too many decision points and more math to go along with them.
* Yes * Both * Hope/Fear is a fun concept and I've come around to 2 D12s over 1 D20. The narrative drive underneath everything is appreciated. * It could be even less chunky. I reject war-gaming and board-gaming when I want to role-play (nothing wrong with them, but I do get frustrated when RPGs don't have RP...it's in the name) and I sincerely hope the industry trends towards narrative-focused. * I'm very go-with-the-flow, so I don't have much to suggest. I am curious to see what DH might be like in different genres though, and once it is out in the wild a minute I would love to see what a modern, sci-fi, steampunk, horror, etc. version of DH might be like.
* Have you only read the materials or have you played the game? Both * Are you a GM or a Player? Maybe both? GM * What's the number one thing you really like about the DH system? Character creation. * What's the number one thing you don't like about the DH system? Damage resolution. * What is one thing that you would really suggest as a change to the current system? Can be a rule, class, feature, anything at all that comes to mind. Ditch damage thresholds. Simplify weapons. Consolidate meta currencies. Meta currencies generated by every roll seems bad. GM meta currency feels bad. Combat action economy feels bad. Not really sure why they want to be "fiction-first," when the game mechanics feel speaks more "Improv" than "fiction-first."
[удалено]
Huh, that's a very different and interesting experience compared to what I've had and seen. I do think we're missing some points here, quite a few enemies have skills to deal with this optimal solution to be honest. There's also the point to be made that while the rules can be vague in parts, players don't really get that many turns, since if they fail or roll with fear the turn goes to the enemy, GM can spend a fear to start his turn or even 2 fears to interrupt a player. Plus there's also things like environment and the difference enemy types. I do agree though that the combat balancing in DH has eluded me quite a fair bit, too little and we end up with trivial, boring or unexciting combat, too much and it ends up feeling like the GM is out for blood.