What Do People Think of Daggerheart So Far?
What Do People Think of Daggerheart So Far?
I've been invited to join a game of Daggerheart. I like the critical role people, but otherwise know nothing about the game. I haven't read much about it or anything yet. And I haven't seen a thread about it on Lemmy yet, so I'm wondering what the different opinions on it so far are.
People enjoying it? Not liking it? Mixed reviews, making it a sort of niche game? Any good or bad comparisons with other fantasy ttrpg's?
You're viewing a single thread.
The game is still in beta, so things could change etc... I also haven't played the game, my opinion is simply from what I've read - I barely play dnd nowadays, I don't have time to learn and give a chance to every other ttrpg that gets released on the market.
But for the moment I'm not particularly impressed. The Hope/Fear system seems fun at first, but it's more resources that the party and the GM have to manage. The fact that I, as a GM, should be forced to manage resources across an entire session (should I spend fear points now or keep them for the climatic battle?) is kind of annoying when I'm already trying to prep and run a session.
The combat system is... Odd. I get what they were trying to do - do away with turn based combat and allow for a more cinematic experience, where players can prepare combos and react to situations on the fly - but the free-form combat system doesn't really allow that. It's just yet another weight on the shoulders of the DM, who is forced to make sure that the spotlight falls equally on all players. A fun game still requires everyone to take their turns equally, and the lack of rules doesn't change that.
The game also refuses to verbalize even the most basic of information. How much gold is in that hoard? How far does that bandit run? The game doesn't want to answer those questions, because it doesn't want to curb the players' imagination. The reason for all these changes and mechanics is to allow the game to be the most cinematic ttrpg ever, and I kind of applaud the effort - I can see the free-form combat, the vague and generic quantities, the whiplash of hope and fear and their effect the session, allowing for epic and cinematic moments that will be recollected for decades among the players.
But it's also not for everyone. It's great for theatre-of-the-mind play where the narrative is much more important than the mechanics, but it needs a strong DM to put all those mechanics to good use, and a tight group to roleplay effectively without stealing each other's spotlight.
Edit: forgot to mention, but of course this is just my own, personal opinion, and doesn't necessarily reflect other people's experience with the game.
I think this is spot on and I overall dislike the game. One thing that I am a li'l bit interested in is the hitpoints system which seems like a good mix of Fate stressboxes with D&D damage.
The amount of incoming damage can go to certain thresholds and that has different consequences (both symbol-layer mechanical and diegetic). I think that's neat and I'm glad to see that experiment carried further.
How much gold is in that hoard?
Wow, I had missed that. That's not good. I mean, CR gets criticized for their "shopping episodes" (even though my own group is even more extreme in that regard) so maybe that's to address that? Diaspora, for example, just has a "recourses" roll instead of detailed accounting of space credits, and it seems to work well in the context of that game.
How far does that bandit run?
I don't think that's a fair characterization; range bands is trued and tested tech. Cartesian spatialization is overkill for most game groups.
Thanks for taking the time to write that.
Interesting. Sounds kind of FATE - like.