this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
51 points (98.1% liked)

rpg

3990 readers
58 users here now

This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs

Rules (wip):

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I run a table. One of the people at the table insisted that I checked out Daggerheart. So I did. And I was very pleasantly surprised.

Why? Well, I admit I had some prejudices against it. First, I sort of made up my mind when I saw the whole licensing issue, Daggerheart basically doing what Wizards of the Coast did with Dungeons and Dragons. But not only that, I also saw red flags in Daggerheart itself: minis.

I saw a video for Daggerheart where the thumbnail showed minis. I was out. I find minis so frustrating. They are in my list of things that I cannot care about. I care about dramatic stories, not combat simulation. I care about intrigue and character growth, not arithmetic. I saw that and assumed that Daggerheart was a combat simulator just like Dungeons and Dragons is. I didn't even pay attention.

But then my friend insisted that I read about Daggerheart. And so I did.

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that minis are optional. Even more importantly, I was shocked to find a game that effectively is Powered by the Apocalypse. I was especially relieved to not find rules for movement that require trigonometry or strange approximations (unlike Dungeons and Dragons, where there are grids and numbers everywhere).

I found a game that prioritized drama. Yes, it still simulates combat, but it does so in such a simple way that makes me happy to run it.

I’m excited! This would be the first game that I ever play when the game is just released. This would be the first game in which I don't even have to pitch to the table; the table already wants to play it.

Of course, these are my first impressions. Maybe they'll change. For now, I'm happy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (8 children)

I have yet to meet a pbta game I actually like. I was going to check out dagger heart (I have heard nothing positive about it from my customers), I think I will wait for Anna to get a pdf.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

Same here. I was kind of interested in Daggerheart as something to propose as an alternative for my friends who dig the tradgame vibe (I honestly assumed it was going to be very 5e like but with some tweaks and serial numbers filed off), but hearing it's PbtA-like has dashed all my interest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Totally valid. I assume you like combat simulators like Dungeons and Dragons. Is that the case? If not, what do you dislike about PbtA?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

Short version: I've just never managed to feel enjoyment while playing any of the ones I've tried. I dont think theyre bad, I just think they dont really click for the way I like to run games. And it has almost nothing to do with combat, which takes up very little table time in my preferred games (combat tends to go no longer than 3 rounds, usually less than 3 minutes each for a table of 6 -- by then, PCs are either victorious, making an expeditious retreat, or dead).

Long version: I just can't find a good rhythm with Monster of the Week, Thirsty Sword Lesbians or Apocalypse World (the three games in this style I've tried). Most of it comes down to how much more mental work it is for me to watch out for move triggers (and memorize the set of moves for each playbook, plus the GM moves. While I already do most of the things the GM moves are meant to encourage in my games of choice, I'm not really thinking of them as I do them -- they feel very fluid, like natural reactions to my players. Hinting at future danger, presenting a hard choice, etc. PbtA games have made it feel much less natural, far more mechanical, and it pulls me out of the natural conversation of a game.

I also dont really like the way it wants me to use dice. Normally, I take the approach that if a PC has the tools, the time and the skills, their desired action automatically succeeds unless it's truly impossible. To put that in PbtA terms, sometimes I want to make a move so soft it's not even there. But PbtA games tend to not accept this, so you have players rolling more often and coming up with mixed success more often than not, which can burn me out and lead the PCs into a death spiral of mixed success, especially when I've gotten worn down and can't come up with anything reasonable to tack on. It's frustrating and anti-fun for me.

And then I think the core malfunction that underscores all of this for me is that PbtA is not really there to emulate a living world, but instead focuses on genre emulation. There's nothing wrong with that, except I've yet to find one that tries to be a genre I like in the way I understand that genre. It seems like my choices are "angsty, sexy, teen drama," "angsty, sexy, adult drama," or "cozy," with not much for me to hang my creative hat on. I didn't watch Buffy, Angel or X-Files growing up, so MotW hit a little soft. I dont care for Apocalypse World's picture of post apocalypse storytelling, so that also didnt really fit for me. And tbh, I can't figure out what TSL is trying to be -- it doesn't really mirror my own queer experience (maybe because I'm not a lesbian?), and doesn't seem to point to any other stereotyped fiction. So it all just feels empty.

Hopefully that explains it, but I love talking about RPGs (even ones I didn't enjoy), so if its confusing I can try to clarify.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago

Not the person you asked but I'm taking this opportunity to talk about why I wouldn't play pbta as my main game.

One, I rarely feel like my character is competent. I'm usually rolling mixed success, and that feels bad. A good GM can take the edge off there. they can make it so the problem was circumstances or the strength of your enemy, instead of your fuck up. But most GMs aren't good, they're average.

Related, and I think this might have been a result of not liking the GM, when I do get a mixed success it often feels like the GM is just fucking with me. It felt very unilateral. They decide what happens with no buy-in from the table needed. When I run Fate, mixed successes are a proposal the player can accept, decline, or suggest another idea.

Third, playbooks feel like mad libs instead of writing. So much is already defined, typically, it's constraining and anchoring. I don't feel like I'm really making something of my own. I can see how that's really helpful for some people but I don't enjoy it. I much prefer the utterly freeform mode of Fate. I want to be a chaos magick using librarian? I can just write that down.

I had fun doing a one shot of rapscallions a couple weeks ago, but I wouldn't make it my main game.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

For me it's not so much combat I'm looking for as competence (and due to this, D&D 5e irritates me for largely restricting competence to combat by various means). PBtA rubs me the wrong way primarily because, when combined with a system that makes "yes, but" the most common result, moves feel less like the things your character can do well and more like the things characters try to do despite not being good at them.

Also, PBtA games tend to dictate *who* your character is more than most.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Gotcha.

I see what you mean. Apocalypse World is not on the side of brutally hard or the side of trivially easy; it sits in the middle, in "yes, but". Some games make certain things impossible ("No, you can't jump to the moon"). Other games make things trivial ("Sure, use your 'ultra high jump' ability"). In other games, the difference between "you can't" and "sure" is just your character's level.

This means that, no matter how weak or strong your character is, you can try anything. This does not mean, however, that all characters in Apocalypse World are equally competent. In Apocalypse World, an incompetent character usually has a -2 stat, while a very competent character has a +3 stat. The difference between -2 and +3 is quite massive, even if it doesn't seem at first.

You can be sure of it by checking out this graph that Vincent Baker, the creator of Apocalypse World, made:

Notice that your odds of a strong hit go from 5% to 55%. Your odds of at least a weak hit go from 30% to 90%. If a teacher saw their student go from 30% to 90%, they'd think the student changed, grew, became more competent.

Well, but aren't other games more dramatic in their character stat growth? Aren't other games in the extremes of brutally hard or trivially easy? Probably, but I'm not sure that this is a bug. To me, it's a feature.

My players can try anything. They want to burn the whole realm in a single Move? They do it. And I get to think about how that changes the world. I get to think about how the fire destroyed their own home. I get to think about what new societies arise from the ashes. I get to think about how the players' NPC friends are now plotting against them. In other words, the fact that players can try anything at all makes the game very interesting to me and to my friends. I never tell them "nope, you can't". I also never tell them "obviously you can". Instead, they can always genuinely try. And the world constantly adapts. There is no status quo. That's the feature, not the bug.

If players can try anything, how come their character sheets are so over-constrained? This is a good point. I agree with you. If you dislike the character sheets in Apocalypse World, it's kind of a bummer. However, the way that Apocalypse World does characters is decidedly not how all PbtA games do characters. Vincent Baker himself has said that his character playbooks are a sort of historical accident and that other PbtA games could be entirely different (1). And, indeed, there are PbtA games that are entirely different.

Take Ironsworn or Starforged. Both of those games are Powered by the Apocalypse and have an explosion of options for character creation. During character creation, you're given a deck of cards, and you get to pick three of them for your character. Each card represents a special feat, ability, companion, tool, magic, vehicle, or other options. In Ironsworn there are 75 assets, which gives you 405,150 different combinations for your character. In Starforged there are 87 assets, which gives you 635,970 different combinations for your character.

How does Daggerheart fare in this regard? Does it over-constrain characters? In short, it's nowhere close to Apocalypse World. Yes, it doesn't have Ironsworn and Starforged's explosion of options. However, they do have a card system in which you can choose your character's ancestry and community. You also choose different cards every time you level up, cards that are specific to your class. This is definitely not an over-constraining game.

So, to recap, the difference between a competent Apocalypse World character and an incompetent one is great. However, players can still always succeed or always fail, which I think is not a bug, but a feature; the world is always adapting to what players do! Finally, Daggerheart is nowhere close to Apocalypse World in terms of over-constraining characters.

(1) Here Vincent Baker shows that Playbooks are even optional to the Apocalypse World model.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)