Review: Daggerheart Corebook

[Sablemage]

"I used to be 'with it'. But then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it', and what's 'it' seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you!" - The Simpsons

This one, I didn't actually buy; a friend lent me his copy for a few days, so I inhaled it at speed, took notes, and pondered. This review is based on a high-speed read-through and watching videos by enthusiastic YouTubers.

In a Nutshell: High fantasy narrative-focused RPG from Darrington Press, the Critical Role people; there's a PDF version available here for $30.

Core Mechanics​

When your PC tries to do something, you roll 2d12; the Hope Die and the Fear Die. You add the scores and any modifiers, and if the total meets or beats a target number, you succeed, otherwise you fail. If the Hope Die has the higher score, you succeed or fail with Hope, and good things happen; if the Fear Die is higher, bad things happen.

Combat uses a form of popcorn initiative; a PC goes first, and so long as they roll with Hope, they can nominate another PC; if they roll with Fear, the spotlight (as initiative is called) passes to an enemy.

If you succeed at hitting someone, you then roll damage dice, multiply the result by your proficiency, compare the outcome to their damage thresholds, give them a chance to mark off an armour slot to absorb some of it, then deduct 0-3 from their hit points, depending on the outcome of the previous steps. The damage die type is determined by the kind of attack, the number of dice is indirectly determined by PC level.

What's Inside?​

Introduction (11 pages): What's an RPG, what kind of RPG is Daggerheart, what other games and fiction inspired it, core mechanics, what you need to play, how to be a good player, and so on. The game is designed for a GM and up to 4 players, but seems equally at home with one-shots, short campaigns, or long ones.

Preparing for Adventure (76 pages): Character creation. It's big because there are a lot of options. This covers the game's basic theology, how magic works, and other matters that influence character creation. There are nine familiar classes, each with two subclasses; 18 ancestries ("races"), and you can mix and match half-whatevers with GM approval; 9 different types of community your PC could come from. There are six familiar traits, with values from -1 to +2; these are applied directly to dice rolls. Each character has a set inventory, and begins with two "experiences" - effectively, groups of related skills - each with a +2 modifier. An example PC is provided to show how it all works.

Playing an Adventure (53 pages): Player-facing rules; mechanics for combat and non-combat tasks, spellcasting, levelling up, equipment. Levelling up unlocks additional powers, improves modifiers, adds experiences, and so on. This chapter also has a detailed example of play.

Running an Adventure (53 pages): Rules for the Game Master. What the GM does, how to be a good one, GM-facing mechanics (which are sometimes different from player-facing ones), session zero, safety tools, how to run a session, a one-shot or a campaign. This is more conversational than the previous chapter, focused on giving advice rather than explaining rules, and reminds the GM they can change or drop things they don't like.

Adversaries and Environments (60 pages): The bestiary. Note that Daggerheart treats environments and events as a kind of monster, with statblocks of their own. Types of adversary or environment, guidelines for building encounters, guidelines for creating new monsters, statblocks and whatnot.

Campaign Frames (55 pages): Six example campaign structures for long-term play, each with an overview, modifications to the core rules, things for the GM and players to bear in mind, how to kick off and run the campaign, what to focus on in session zero, and a generic map to customise by adding specific features.

Appendices (35 pages): Quick reference, character sheets, maps, other reference documentation.

...and we close with an index.

What I Liked​

• The artwork is nice, cartoonish but in an upmarket way, the sort of thing you'd find in a contemporary graphic novel.
• The game is supportive of new players and GMs; lots of advice on how to do things.
• The metacurrencies, Hope (for PCs) and Fear (for the GM), which are generated by player dice rolls and used to power special abilities.
• No whiffing. Every dice roll does something to advance the story.
• Ranges measured as Close, Far etc. rather than numerically. I can see this working well for Theatre of the Mind or solo play. (Numbers are provided for people like me.)
• The advice to players, especially the admonition to embrace danger. PCs who avoid risk like the plague frustrate me.
• The advice on using and advancing countdown timers. Some very clever stuff here, including using them in ways I haven't seen before such as for holding your breath.
• The tactical advice to GMs on how to use each of the main types of NPC enemies.
• A nice range of NPCs and monsters in the bestiary, concisely described, and with specific ones designed for social encounters.
• The way that environments such as "Raging River" or "Imperial Court" are statted up to use as settings for encounters. That's clever.

What I Didn't Like​

• The game has a strong focus on collaborative storytelling; it's designed for theatre kids rather than wargaming grognards like m'self.
• There's also a strong focus on safety tools and sensitivity, which tells me it is not a game I will enjoy at the table - that's correlation not causation; players should feel safe and respected, but a strong focus on this area usually means the game doesn't focus on aspects of gaming that I enjoy.
• Character creation is a magical muppet show; it seems every PC is a member of a different race, usually with big pointy ears, usually a spellcaster. This is high fantasy with the volume turned up to 11; I'm a gritty sword and sorcery guy m'self, and Daggerheart doesn't lend itself to that.
• How damage is inflicted seems unnecessarily long-winded and complex. In fact, most of the rules seem to filter what you're doing through several layers of stuff before you get to an outcome, whether those layers are extra rules or asking someone to describe what happens.
• There are a number of places where the editing looks a bit off to me; grammatical or spelling errors. I find those jarring during a read-through, especially when they keep happening.
• The GM's characters use different rules to PCs in some places. That increases the cognitive load on the GM, as he needs to know both sets of rules.
• PCs, and defeated enemies, can only die if players specifically want that to happen. That's explicit in the case of enemies, and while in theory a PC could die unintentionally, setting that up requires a deliberate decision by the player.

What I'm Undecided About​

• The heavy use of cards, quick reference sheets and so on. You'll need a piece of table roughly 30 x 60 cm just to lay out your character; that's 1' by 2' in old money. From running D&D 4th Edition, I know that using cards at the table is fun, especially for more tactile players; from playing WFRP3, I know that needing a lot of table space and fighting over that one unique card everyone wants in their hand are not fun.
• The spotlight. I suppose this is really a question of whether you trust your players to share the spotlight and hand initiative over to each other in a fair and efficient manner. The one time I've seen something similar tried - a house rule where characters on the same side could trade initiative rolls - it led to slow, clunky combat rounds. That could be due to the players involved.
• The mechanics are slanted in favour of the PCs, for example they roll 2d12 while GM characters roll 1d20; PCs will usually roll a couple of points higher than NPCs, their scores will be more predictable, and as critical successes occur when both d12s match, PCs can get those and NPCs can't - and there are no critical failures.
• The constant admonition to the GM to ask (or tell) the players what things look like. Great for the eloquent and inventive, but what about the rest of us? How well this works is going to depend on your table, I think.
• Tag Team Rolls. These allow two PCs to act together; in games with a more formal initiative mechanism, one PC would go "On Hold" and wait for their fellow to be ready, but as there is no initiative as such in Daggerheart, something like this is necessary instead. Doing this costs one PC at least half their Hope, but both use the better of their dice scores.
• Proficiency (ranging from 1 to 6) determines how many damage dice you roll for your weapon; as you level up, you not only get better at hitting, you hit harder with the same attack. This interacts with damage thresholds to mean you are more likely to inflict 3 hit points of damage.

What I Think​

For all its cleverness, I put the rulebook down unable to shake the feeling that a Daggerheart campaign would be fanfic about a party of magical girl Mary Sues, orchestrated by an emotional support GM.

If you enjoy that kind of game, more power to you; but it's not for me.

Daggerheart may be the future of gaming, but like the past, the future is another country and they do things differently there. I left this game not feeling respected and empowered as it intended, but instead feeling obsolete, with sighs of "Okay, Boomer," following me out.

If you want me, I'll be at the corner table, drinking with Conan and Earl Dumarest.

Continue reading...

 

[Whirlmeister]

One comment here that I see repeatedly but always strike me as odd:

"How damage is inflicted seems unnecessarily long-winded and complex."

Lets take a real example:

D&D: You have 54 hit points, you take 27 damage. You subtract 27 from 53 to tell you you have 26 hit points remaining

Daggerheart: You have 6 Hit Points, A severe damage threshold of 24, and a major damage threshold of 14.

• Severe damage is equal to or above your Severe threshold; you mark 3 HP.
• Major damage is equal to or above your Major threshold but below Severe; you mark 2 HP.
• Minor damage is anything below your Major threshold; you mark 1 HP.

You take 27 damage which is more that your Severe damage threshold and so mark 3 HP, leaving you 3 HP.

I dont know about you but once you understand how damage thresholds work the maths is incredibly easy. The most complex maths you will ever need to do is compare two numbers to see if the damage is higher than a threshold or subtract a number up to 3.

You may then claim armour adds complexity, so here is the armour rule:

• Tick one armour slot to reduce damage by one. You can only use one armour slot per attack.

I keep seeing this "in Daggerheart damage is complex" arguement - and I agree it has more steps than D&D, but I know its intuitive enough and simple enough that an 11 year old can grasp it instantly and in play its much faster than D&D damage. Comparing two numbers to see which is higher vs subtracting one big number from another - there is no comparision.

Edit: Just adding a screenshot of an (online) Daggerheart character sheet to show how simple this looks on the sheet.



and the Paper one:

 

[First Age]

One comment here that I see repeatedly but always strike me as odd:

"How damage is inflicted seems unnecessarily long-winded and complex."

Lets take a real example:

D&D: You have 54 hit points, you take 27 damage. You subtract 27 from 53 to tell you you have 26 hit points remaining

Daggerheart: You have 6 Hit Points, A severe damage threshold of 24, and a major damage threshold of 14.

• Severe damage is equal to or above your Severe threshold; you mark 3 HP.
• Major damage is equal to or above your Major threshold but below Severe; you mark 2 HP.
• Minor damage is anything below your Major threshold; you mark 1 HP.

You take 27 damage which is more that your Severe damage threshold and so mark 3 HP, leaving you 3 HP.

I dont know about you but once you understand how damage thresholds work the maths is incredibly easy. The most complex maths you will ever need to do is compare two numbers to see if the damage is higher than a threshold or subtract a number up to 3.

You may then claim armour adds complexity, so here is the armour rule:

• Tick one armour slot to reduce damage by one. You can only use one armour slot per attack.

I keep seeing this "in Daggerheart damage is complex" arguement - and I agree it has more steps than D&D, but I know its intuitive enough and simple enough that an 11 year old can grasp it instantly and in play its much faster than D&D damage. Comparing two numbers to see which is higher vs subtracting one big number from another - there is no comparision.

Edit: Just adding a screenshot of an (online) Daggerheart character sheet to show how simple this looks on the sheet.

View attachment 6007

and the Paper one:

View attachment 6008

I must say I found it really easy in play. In fact the whole game really sang to me, with well blended resonances to other games that I have really enjoyed. It was a medelly that worked.

I've only played once, so need to get some more in. Is it another fighting focussed game, where cards and powers are about dealing or evading damage in combat or evoking powers that come into play when the fight is on? I was playing a sorcerer, so mostly I thrashed things with chaos.

 

[Guvnor]

I have said before that I like popcorn initiative. I have also found tables that are paralysed by indecision by it.
DH damage system seems bit more complex than Savage Worlds but not much.
I'd say that different GM rules to PC rules can be a lifesaver for a GM, but it does suggest a high level of crunch per class/domain etc. that necessitates it.
The supportive tone and modern inclusiveness appeals to me.
I wonder how much it appeals to mini maxers or to accountants that love complexity and cards?
How does it scale?
I do realise the OP can't answer that, was hoping someone else has played it more.

 

[Neil Gow]

I have said before that I like popcorn initiative. I have also found tables that are paralysed by indecision by it.
DH damage system seems bit more complex than Savage Worlds but not much.
I'd say that different GM rules to PC rules can be a lifesaver for a GM, but it does suggest a high level of crunch per class/domain etc. that necessitates it.
The supportive tone and modern inclusiveness appeals to me.
I wonder how much it appeals to mini maxers or to accountants that love complexity and cards?
How does it scale?
I do realise the OP can't answer that, was hoping someone else has played it more.

I'll bite

In the games I have ran (3):

• Spotlight initiative is pretty natural and flows easily with players who are self-aware.
• It's less complex than SW - no exploding dice, no soak rolls, no raises etc. but that's definitely a YMMV thing. It is very intuitive in play.
• The asynchronous rules are also pretty simple to understand and use.
• Some classes are more complicated than others; Warriors are pretty simple, Druids are complex as per usual.
• There's not a lot to min-max and even if, for example, you commit to doing Big Damage, you're only really doing 3HP more consistently.
• The cards don't work like combos or anything like that.
• Limited experience of scaling at the moment, but I have ran T1 combats and T2 combats and they have felt close at times and not at others. As with a lot of modern games, a Big Sack of HP is a lot less threat than many smaller attackers. Reskinned great eagles throwing people of a sky ship was great fun...

And to answer Graham's question about OOC stuff - actually a lot of the OOC stuff lies in the hands of the spellcasters, who have a strong array of typical D&D style options in their Books of... cards. Illusions, mage hands, levitation, charms. They're all there. And for anything else, you can simply try, use the right stat, pay a Hope and use an Experience.

Neil

 

[GuyMilner]

There's also a strong focus on safety tools and sensitivity, which tells me it is not a game I will enjoy at the table - that's correlation not causation; players should feel safe and respected, but a strong focus on this area usually means the game doesn't focus on aspects of gaming that I enjoy.

I find this really interesting. What other games have you had this reaction to, if you don't mind sharing? Is it just a "modern games" thing? I'm someone who's pretty exacting about wanting safety tools at every table I'm at (to the point of being prepared to walk away if they aren't there) so I'm interested in why they might be a downer for you.

 

[Sablemage]

I find this really interesting. What other games have you had this reaction to, if you don't mind sharing? Is it just a "modern games" thing? I'm someone who's pretty exacting about wanting safety tools at every table I'm at (to the point of being prepared to walk away if they aren't there) so I'm interested in why they might be a downer for you.

It's not the concept, it's how it's dealt with.

In Deadlands, you have a few paragraphs on a couple of pages which basically say "don't be hurtful to other players". That's a reasonable position, reasonably expressed.

In Daggerheart, you have a steady drip of "remember to play nicely", the usual X card and whatnot, four pages of advice on how to roleplay disability sensitively, a page or two on combat wheelchairs... I'm here for the game, not mandatory sensitivity training, I had enough of that at work.

It does seem to be a "modern games" thing, and Daggerheart takes it to extremes. I play the X card on it!

 

[Sablemage]

On Daggerheart damage: I've only read it, thought about it, and watched a couple of videos. I'll yield the floor to anyone who's played it or run it.

However, I think there's another aspect to this which we haven't discussed so far, which is that certain ways of handling damage are more intuitive to certain people. For example:

• Whatever you think about D&D hit points, they are easy to teach, understand and use.
• True20 wound levels are straightforward enough on the page, but I can't use them at the table; I just can't process them.
• Savage Worlds Wounds confuse some of my players, but I'm fine with them.
• I had to play quite a lot of FATE before I understood how to use consequences to represent injuries.

 

[Guvnor]

I was sceptical about safety tools to be honest. Then I did a pre game questionnaire on "lines and veils", content and tone. It was an eye opener, simple things that some people really had a problem with, and yet were so simple to accommodate in advance.
So I tend to rely on always doing lines and veils before con games and games with newish people.

 

[GuyMilner]

It's not the concept, it's how it's dealt with.

In Deadlands, you have a few paragraphs on a couple of pages which basically say "don't be hurtful to other players". That's a reasonable position, reasonably expressed.

In Daggerheart, you have a steady drip of "remember to play nicely", the usual X card and whatnot, four pages of advice on how to roleplay disability sensitively, a page or two on combat wheelchairs... I'm here for the game, not mandatory sensitivity training, I had enough of that at work.

It does seem to be a "modern games" thing, and Daggerheart takes it to extremes. I play the X card on it!

Thanks for clarifying. I'm interested in what your data set is for the correlation - what other games have you read this in, and not liked in play?

 

[Guvnor]

Data set? Sounding a bit like an academic review @GuyMilner

 

[GuyMilner]

Data set? Sounding a bit like an academic review @GuyMilner

I'm not the one that brought correlation into it!

I'm just curious what other games the OP has this experience with - where the safety guidance has (indirectly or otherwise) led to a disappointing play experience. Is there a hidden variable? Why, given that we dont read the whole book, would those bits affect play? (I looked at the combat wheelchairs bit of Daggerheart, thought "oh good, nice touch to put that in," but I didn't read them - just like I havent read every spell in D&D until I use them)

Does that make my request seem reasonable, @Guvnor ?

 

[Sablemage]

@GuyMilner It's a null dataset, because I don't go on to use game products with full fat safety tools in them, at least not as a GM. Insofar as there is a correlation, that's all it is, and now I've noticed it, I use it as one part of my selection process.

I haven't been keeping records of which of my games have safety tools, so I won't be able to show my working; but it can't be many, because I didn't read about safety tools until about 2020, and I assume they're not much older than that.

I do, in fact, read the whole book - remembering it all later is another matter. However, I don't anticipate a section on 'lines and veils' having any more impact on play at the table than the 'what is an RPG?' section.