Neil Gow
Demi-God
It has taken a while to get this to the table, but I finally tested Daggerheart this week with some of my Star Trek Adventures group. It was also the day after the 1.3...
Continue reading...
Continue reading...
[generic] Testing Daggerheart
- Thread starter Neil Gow
- Start date
Nathan
Demi-God
I've been hearing a little bit of criticism about Daggerheart from people online who have played it. It seems the combat mechanics can be lethal, more so than D&D and Savage Worlds. One chap I was talking to on Facebook run an encounter, which the rules considered to be low risk, and unintentionally killed two PCs. He's of the opinion that the lethality needs to be dialed back a little.
Does anyone feel the same way or has an opposing view point?
Does anyone feel the same way or has an opposing view point?
neilcford
Acolyte
I haven’t read all of it, but there’s a long but interesting post on Daggerheart by Rob Donoghue. It’s compiled from a long series of Bluesky posts.
My Read on Daggerheart
Ok, so this is a weird one. I actually started capturing my impressions on Daggerheart in a bluesky thread, and then just sort of….kept going. It was a terrible idea, but I was committed to t…
walkingmind.evilhat.com
neilcford
Acolyte
So I’ve read more of Rob Donoghue's thread and have come across this bit about combats:
That seems to support the “it's potentially lethal” argument, but it is just one analysis.
OH GOD DAMMIT
So, the actual guidance on fight budget looks like this:
I was reading off the PDF in split panel, and just based on the peculiarities of my setup, that + read like a division symbol.
Short form, my math is embarrassingly wrong.
So, in fact, those 4 adventurers are expected to fight 7 of those (~ 80% of an adventurer) guards.
Which, in turn, suggests the number of fights between rests is rather closer to “1”
That seems to support the “it's potentially lethal” argument, but it is just one analysis.
Well, @Neil Gow is roadtesting it again today with some very competent system experts (including @Swordmaster) so I have to hope we will get a good answer this week.
neilcford
Acolyte
I’m looking forward to reading more.
As someone who has played, as opposed to run (I was an RPGA DM at one point!), very little traditional fantasy, isn’t well read on the genre (The Hobbit, that’s about it (I don’t think The Lies of Locke Lamora or the Thieves World Series count
)) or much interested in fantasy TV or movies, I'm not the target audience for Daggerheart, but there’s is something about what I’ve read that intrigues me, to the point that I’d quite like to play the QuickStart, just to sate my curiosity. In the meantime, reading other people’s experiences will do.
neilcford
Acolyte
Rob's comments were in the context of the apparent D&D norm of 5 combats per rest and his initial misreading of Daggerheart which had him thinking that it would be about 3 combats per rest.
I'm guessing most people calling it lethal are coming from much less punishing experiences, which at least in some respects, seems to be the market Daggerheart is aimed at.
What I should have said was “it's potentially more lethal than players of D&D are used to”
Neil Gow
Demi-God
Hey folks
On Lethality
Daggerheart isn't lethal at all. Like, AT ALL
But how come, Neil, I hear you ask? Well, let me tell you.
In the first instance, you cannot actually die unless you want to. When you reach 0HP, you make a Death Move (P106). These are
- Blaze of Glory: you died but get to do something which automatically criticals before you die
So if you don't want to die, choose Avoid Death and well, avoid death. Simple. So to answer @Nathan question, I don't just have an opposing view point, the rules explicitly make it that way!
On Encounter Strength
The encounter budget appears to work perfectly. I ran three battles today with encounter budgets of 11 [(3 x 3 charcters)+2] - The encounters were:
Ravaging Pirate Scum
Pirate Captain (1x Tier 1 Leader, 3pts)
Pirate Tough (1x Tier 1 Bruiser, 4pts)
Pirate Raiders (2x Tier 1 Horde, 4pts - 3/HP)
Iron Talon Eagles
Giant Eagle (5x Tier 2 Skulks, 10pts)
Monster on the Mountain: The Forever Faithful
Patchwork Zombie Hulk (2x Tier 1 Solo, 10pts)
The pirates were an easy work out to ease the players into the system. There's a lot of horde to that horde - 24 characters - but they go down like 9-pins and make your chaos throwing druid feel all special.
The eagles were another story altogether as they managed to pick each of the PCs up (eventually) to then attempt to hurl them off their sky ship. Very funny but also quite tense as only the druid could fly properly.
The Zombie Hulks were not that hard at all, as might be the case for off-tier monsters, even solos. As I said, easing in...
Between their armour and other abilities, no one was really that near to 'avoiding death' in any of the fights. The Short Rest system worked to their advantage as you might expect, but so did having a Bard with their healing songs.
In short
Don't believe everything you hear on the internet, and trust your Uncle Neil - hahahahaha
p.s. I'll be writing a play-informed review this week. Spoilers - we REALLY enjoyed it.
On Lethality
Daggerheart isn't lethal at all. Like, AT ALL
But how come, Neil, I hear you ask? Well, let me tell you.
In the first instance, you cannot actually die unless you want to. When you reach 0HP, you make a Death Move (P106). These are
- Blaze of Glory: you died but get to do something which automatically criticals before you die
- Avoid Death: You fall unconscious and suffer potentially other consequences, one of which may be getting a Scar (a mechanical thing in DH)
- Risk It All: A chance to bounce back into the action, or die.
So if you don't want to die, choose Avoid Death and well, avoid death. Simple. So to answer @Nathan question, I don't just have an opposing view point, the rules explicitly make it that way!
On Encounter Strength
The encounter budget appears to work perfectly. I ran three battles today with encounter budgets of 11 [(3 x 3 charcters)+2] - The encounters were:
Ravaging Pirate Scum
Pirate Captain (1x Tier 1 Leader, 3pts)
Pirate Tough (1x Tier 1 Bruiser, 4pts)
Pirate Raiders (2x Tier 1 Horde, 4pts - 3/HP)
Iron Talon Eagles
Giant Eagle (5x Tier 2 Skulks, 10pts)
Monster on the Mountain: The Forever Faithful
Patchwork Zombie Hulk (2x Tier 1 Solo, 10pts)
The pirates were an easy work out to ease the players into the system. There's a lot of horde to that horde - 24 characters - but they go down like 9-pins and make your chaos throwing druid feel all special.
The eagles were another story altogether as they managed to pick each of the PCs up (eventually) to then attempt to hurl them off their sky ship. Very funny but also quite tense as only the druid could fly properly.
The Zombie Hulks were not that hard at all, as might be the case for off-tier monsters, even solos. As I said, easing in...
Between their armour and other abilities, no one was really that near to 'avoiding death' in any of the fights. The Short Rest system worked to their advantage as you might expect, but so did having a Bard with their healing songs.
In short
Don't believe everything you hear on the internet, and trust your Uncle Neil - hahahahaha
p.s. I'll be writing a play-informed review this week. Spoilers - we REALLY enjoyed it.
Neil Gow
Demi-God
(I'll add one thing extra - one thing I noticed in DH is that there are no inconsequential PC rolls. If you Hit with Hope, that's great. If you miss with Hope, its not terrible but you lose spotlight, which is potentially consequential. If you Hit with Fear, at least you got a lick in, but the GM has the Spot, and if you miss with Fear.... here comes the pain and you know it. No whiffing. Every roll has a consequence and changes the game state. I like that, a LOT)
Sablemage
Demi-God
I am currently reading DH (a friend lent me theirs so frantically absorbing it like Number Five in Short Circuit before I need to return it) and I have questions, what say @Neil Gow please?
There are some bits of combat that look like they would be very slow in play, especially with large numbers of players. I'm thinking especially of the initiative spotlight and rolling damage. How quick and fluid are the combat turns?
I reckon each player needs a piece of table about 30 x 60 cm to lay out all the sheets, cards and whatnot for a single PC. How much space are you finding you need?
There are some bits of combat that look like they would be very slow in play, especially with large numbers of players. I'm thinking especially of the initiative spotlight and rolling damage. How quick and fluid are the combat turns?
I reckon each player needs a piece of table about 30 x 60 cm to lay out all the sheets, cards and whatnot for a single PC. How much space are you finding you need?
Sablemage
Demi-God
Passing spotlight: there was a broadly similar house rule used by one group I played with, essentially PCs were allowed to trade initiative rolls at will, and that resulted in considerable debate each time the PCs got initiative about who should go next and what they should do to advance the group's agenda. So when I've seen something similar used before, it actually was slow, but that could easily just be the group I was playing with.
Rolling damage: this seems to have more steps compared to "roll damage dice, deduct score from target hit points", and more steps is usually slower. If I understand correctly the mechanical sequence in DH is (1) roll damage, (2) look up against table on target's character sheet or statblock to determine damage inflicted, (3) target decides whether to burn an armour slot to reduce incoming damage, (4) deduct residual damage from hit points.
(I do like the idea of "no whiffing", and I didn't pick up on that from just reading.)
Thanks! That's really helpful!
I'd suggest that when players get initiative back, it's beholden to the GM to keep the pace, and moderate spotlight as usual. If the players are desperate to set up the next player, they can interject, but if I'm running, I'll be pointing the spotlight aggressively (as always)
I think damage isnt as much as all that - the GM can always have the thresholds noted down, so it's more "right, 10 damage, thats a major, 2 hp" - the player can decide whether to burn Armour themselves, they don't need to keep the spotlight to do that (if they're being slow!)
Does that make sense? I think ive not noticed this at the table, but maybe it's just easily mitigated.
I'd suggest that when players get initiative back, it's beholden to the GM to keep the pace, and moderate spotlight as usual. If the players are desperate to set up the next player, they can interject, but if I'm running, I'll be pointing the spotlight aggressively (as always)
I think damage isnt as much as all that - the GM can always have the thresholds noted down, so it's more "right, 10 damage, thats a major, 2 hp" - the player can decide whether to burn Armour themselves, they don't need to keep the spotlight to do that (if they're being slow!)
Does that make sense? I think ive not noticed this at the table, but maybe it's just easily mitigated.
Neil Gow
Demi-God
On spotlight ... I never really found it a bother. The table knew where the critical focus had to be and also were wary of the need to ensure everyone had their moment. We're used to doing this - in one format or another most of us have been playing games together for 25 years - so it's not that different to what we do anyway. As Guy says, the GM had frame scenes hard to help. I did quite a few scene recaps just to clarify the state of play. It works.
On damage ... Super easy, barely an inconvenience
practically, there are microscopic parallel actions happening. When the GM is rolling damage the players mind flicks to Thresholds. Then it's just a case of compare, 1-3 damage, oh I might reduce that. But that reduction decision is usually happening as the GM is moving on to the next action. In practice it's honestly no slower than watching someone bust out the finger counting for 37 damage from 112hp!
I think when reading a game we can all imagine the worst case scenario - a table squabbling over who goes next or people floundering over pretty basic steps and functions - but in practice, it really hasn't manifested like that in any of the play test or real games I've played. Honestly, it's faster and more fluid and simply better than say D&D - and that's something from me as I am a fan of the old warhorse game.
On damage ... Super easy, barely an inconvenience
practically, there are microscopic parallel actions happening. When the GM is rolling damage the players mind flicks to Thresholds. Then it's just a case of compare, 1-3 damage, oh I might reduce that. But that reduction decision is usually happening as the GM is moving on to the next action. In practice it's honestly no slower than watching someone bust out the finger counting for 37 damage from 112hp!I think when reading a game we can all imagine the worst case scenario - a table squabbling over who goes next or people floundering over pretty basic steps and functions - but in practice, it really hasn't manifested like that in any of the play test or real games I've played. Honestly, it's faster and more fluid and simply better than say D&D - and that's something from me as I am a fan of the old warhorse game.
I like popcorn initiative, where the players try and glean advantage from tactics. Many of my groups also enjoy it. However there are groups very prone to analysis paralysis over things even simpler than initiative and I have moved to simple sequence systems with them.
(D&D club experience here)
(D&D club experience here)