I think the most important thing to understand about Daggerheart's combat is that it is meant entirely to serve the fiction. It is not really intended to be a mini-game; it is meant to be a moment of tension, sudden twists and surprises, and to create drama that can be explored after the combat is over. It is not meant to be tactical in the D&D sense. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT supposed to be Player vs. GM (at least from the GM side of things). This is not a game where combat=puzzle (though you can go there if you want, it's not the default like it is in Pathfinder, etc.). And yeah, this game will not work at all for tables that are not "nice." It will not work for tables that don't have a certain level of social skill. This system demands a lot more from the players as well as the GM than D&D does, where you can just show up and roll your d20 when required and not engage your brain if that's where you're at today. (And that is very much a feature for games that can play like that, as the barrier to hanging out with your buds on game night is very, very low.)
You hit the nail right on the head with the social group thing. Daggerheart seems to require players to be "on the ball" to say. You need to be engaged and ready to interject.
the interesting thing with the outcry of "what if the player doesn't want to take a turn, because it's suboptimal for this fight?" is that PbtA already solved this problem years ago, the GM's job is to ask "what do you do?" iow to prompt players who haven't acted in a while, hand them the spotlight, and force them to act
This is true! The goal of my solution is to take the stress of micromanaging turns off of the GM, and offer an in-game rule that allows a player to expect the spotlight to inevitably come to them. In my opinion, that's just easier for everyone.
I enjoyed the video, but I do think already coming up with "fixes" for something you haven't played yet is a bit like putting the cart in front of the horse...but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I came up when the same "fix" myself 😉
@@CScott-wh5yk this is a play test specifically to test a set of rules, if you're going to go by your gut and just change the rules before trying them, there's no point. Besides, Reddit is full of "my DM banned X because they thought it was OP" posts that describe some pretty crazy things, perhaps people might not be as good at going with their guts as they think.
If your fellow players don't respect you, you don't rely on a rigid initiative system to get a turn. You get up and walk away. Enabling bad GMs by suffering through bad games doesn't help anyone. If your fellow players do respect you, and you feel like they hog the spotlight, you just tell them "I know you're very invested right now, but please remember we are n players and everybody would like to contribute." Either way, rigid initiative does nothing to address the situation. Though I would say only giving out 3 character tokens at a time is a good way to make invested players realize they have spent a lot of time in the spotlight as they need to ask for/grab more. As for the "i just don't do anything" situation: Why? Every hit in Daggerheart deals damage. Either Stress or Hitpoints. And if Stress is exhausted, Stress damage escalates to hitpoint damage. Also there's no reason in the narrative for someone to just stand by and watch their allies do all the fighting. At least no more then in any other game. If a character in the fiction does not present any threat to the enemy, I expect the enemy to ignore them and kill the dangerous foes first. And again: every hit does damage of some kind, so the more hits concentrate on one character, the faster they go down. And once only the "waiting players" are left, we go to the "if the players wait for the gm to do something, the gm does something" tennet.
yeah, even if the rules say you get a turn, asshole GMs have decades of techniques for making that turn not matter you have a good point that any hit in DH results in progress, but the thing is that both PCs and NPCs have a chance to hit vs miss that serve as a multiplier on whatever they could do on a success, so i can totally see someone running out of things to do if they don't have the wrong damage type or range, or are at low hp
For how combat flow works in Daggerheart, I think it's pretty alright as our table has played ICON before with combat flowing with Player 1, GM then Player 2, GM and etc. This does require the GM to know which moves to use for their statblocks beforehand which is I admit much more prep needed to GMs but simple statblocks should help in this. What I don't like about the system is that it rewards players who don't take a turn at all. My fix would've been rather than "action tokens" during combat, everyone should be required to play a turn every round. Fear tokens just like how Hope tokens work shouldn't be for making a move but rather a resource in activating powerful abilities that enemies have.
Fear tokens are still needed for the most powerful actions, but having action tokens actually helps negate differences in party size because a GM won't be doing significantly more or less actions than the player party will!
Tbh they should add more ways for a player to halp another..not every one should be amazing in combat snd thats what the system is destiny for..so let the combat play shin..the others can halp whit that spotlight
There is a rule, that the GM doesn't need to take a turn after a roll of fear/failure - they choose to take a turn. So essentially, if taking an action constantly feels weird the GM can let the players keep the next turn. Though, I think this was mentioned in the video.
I'm more incline to homebrew Avatar Legends into a Forgotten Realms than play Daggerheart... The point that puts too much pressure to the GM makes me don't want to play it. That's why I'm starting to like more and appreciate more PbtA systems.
If a player does nothing because it would (may) be a good thing for the GM is the least Role Playing Game thing ever, would their character really do nothing on that scene?? RPGs are about role playing as the name suggests, if players woulb be only meta thinking they maybe should be playing a board game instead of a RPG. I get the things you point out on the video, but maybe they are there exactly to encourage players to Roleplay more and be less grid battler simulator. Nice video BTW, you went into the depth other videos are not going into.
I think one "fix" for the action tracker "problem" is for the game to just lean more heavily on reactive actions that don't generate hope nor fear. 1. The player gets to do stuff, even if they didn't themselves initiate it. 2. It caters to a fantasy that some people really do enjoy. Most tanking if fairly reactive in most games/systems, intercepting a blow, stopping someone from moving, etc. Some people just prefer it to being proactive. 3. It erases the fear that you'll be giving the GM more resources. 4. Since it doesn't generate any hope either, you will eventually run out of it and thus be incentivized to take a regular action to regain hope. Sure, it's possible that this will just result in the player stepping back and not interacting in order to deny the GM their resources but at that point they'd already be in the swing of things. Getting people going is much harder than *keeping* people going, that first step towards engaging with the situation is what we're trying to get past. It may still be mathematically optimal for that player to just do nothing once they're out of hope but at that point they're already engaged and are more likely to want to keep engaging.
I think the combat flow is too free form. I think itd work better if people had a set amount of action tokens and no tokens are given back until everyone has used all their tokens.
not having rounds at all can work, it has worked in PbtA for a long time in many forms, but the problem is that mechanizing it for just the GM and not players, going halfway, just ends up really clunky they should either have an initiative order and action economy, or just have "the GM takes an action after any roll with Fear"
As with many others discussing this game, I feel that you are highlighting an actual potential problem, but putting the focus on the wrong causal factor. If you are playing with a table which does not display respect for each other, and where "wallflower" players are penalized for being more passive, not only should you not play this game with them, but you should not be paying *any* games with them. Yes, this game has somewhat different demands, and coming from a mindset of only having run D&D (or adjacent) games will require some adjustment to one's thinking. Insisting on trying to run this game as though it was D&D however, will certainly leave one dissatisfied, as it has very different demands and expectations. I've run many types of games over the past 40 years, and this is not an horrifically complex system, as long as one can divorce themselves from the D&D, tactical wargaming type of thinking.
@@k0jaq No, the idea is to not play at a table that would simply ignore the shy player, and instead play with people who are working together to tell the best story possible, while ensuring that everyone participates. I have a "wallflower" player at my table. We check in with him from time to time, to ensure that he's not feeling left out. As I see it, that's just what one does for their friends. 🤷♂ I answered this as though you were asking in good faith, though I have some serious doubts that engaging in an adult discussion is actually your goal, as not only do I have no idea how you could have possibly misinterpreted my statement so badly with out meaning to, and your tone also indicates a desire to simply attack people with whom you disagree, rather than actually communicating with them.
@Gaurelin You're tone in the first post set the predcent. Don't try to put this on me. You checking in a player isn't the same as letting them play, and I assume you're smart enough to know that. There are many times when a player would say it's okay when it's not. You been around the block. Also, you probably know that people can get excited and jump the gun. Are you assuming that excited players are bad players? That horse sits high bro. 👌
@@k0jaq Hm. Let's examine this. First of all, I cannot possibly see how you got from me saying that if the shy player is being left out, that's the fault of the social dynamic at the table, and not the game they are playing itself to you deciding I'm suggesting that "the goal of the game is to exclude people for being shy" - those are two very different things, and it smacks of intentional obtuseness. Secondly, what tone did I have exactly? I was not rude, nasty, nor short tempered, yet your reply was in no way indicative of someone desiring a good faith, adult discussion. Instead, it was just internet snark, meant to denigrate me, and my opinion. News flash - not only is it ok for others to feel differently than you do, but those opinions are just as valid as yours. Lots of folks seem bound and determined to misrepresent, misunderstand, and dislike this game, simply because it is different than what they're used to. Here's another news flash - D&D (& adjacent) games are not the only games out there, and elements this one is using come from a long and successful lineage of games in the PbtA sphere. Just because it's new and unfamiliar to you, doesn't mean it's untried and/or unworkable. Will this game suit every player and every table? No, absolutely not. What game does though? Now, if you wish to have an adult discussion - you know, an actual exchange of ideas and opinions, I'm happy to engage in such. If all you wish to do is tell me how wrong I am, and furthermore be childish about it, this interaction is over.
@Gaurelin We are having an adult discussion. Let's not try to pretend like longer posts equal better discussion. And let's not kid ourselves that this whole petty backhanded "adult discussion" comment you keep tagging on your posts isn't anything more you trying to dismiss any comments I make as childish simply because I disagreeed with you post and you got called out for playing in clouds while sitting on your high horse. You know exactly what tone you were trying to set in your original post, and anyone who has an iota of intelligence can see that. But it's probably hard to look down at commoners down below while gavalvanting on that horse. Have a great day. I hope you get to join the rest of us on the ground in the future.
I think the most important thing to understand about Daggerheart's combat is that it is meant entirely to serve the fiction. It is not really intended to be a mini-game; it is meant to be a moment of tension, sudden twists and surprises, and to create drama that can be explored after the combat is over. It is not meant to be tactical in the D&D sense. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT supposed to be Player vs. GM (at least from the GM side of things). This is not a game where combat=puzzle (though you can go there if you want, it's not the default like it is in Pathfinder, etc.).
And yeah, this game will not work at all for tables that are not "nice." It will not work for tables that don't have a certain level of social skill. This system demands a lot more from the players as well as the GM than D&D does, where you can just show up and roll your d20 when required and not engage your brain if that's where you're at today. (And that is very much a feature for games that can play like that, as the barrier to hanging out with your buds on game night is very, very low.)
You hit the nail right on the head with the social group thing. Daggerheart seems to require players to be "on the ball" to say. You need to be engaged and ready to interject.
the interesting thing with the outcry of "what if the player doesn't want to take a turn, because it's suboptimal for this fight?" is that PbtA already solved this problem years ago, the GM's job is to ask "what do you do?" iow to prompt players who haven't acted in a while, hand them the spotlight, and force them to act
This is true! The goal of my solution is to take the stress of micromanaging turns off of the GM, and offer an in-game rule that allows a player to expect the spotlight to inevitably come to them. In my opinion, that's just easier for everyone.
I enjoyed the video, but I do think already coming up with "fixes" for something you haven't played yet is a bit like putting the cart in front of the horse...but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I came up when the same "fix" myself 😉
People who have lots of playing experience don’t actually have to play a mechanic to know how it will work over the table.
@@CScott-wh5yk this is a play test specifically to test a set of rules, if you're going to go by your gut and just change the rules before trying them, there's no point.
Besides, Reddit is full of "my DM banned X because they thought it was OP" posts that describe some pretty crazy things, perhaps people might not be as good at going with their guts as they think.
If your fellow players don't respect you, you don't rely on a rigid initiative system to get a turn. You get up and walk away. Enabling bad GMs by suffering through bad games doesn't help anyone.
If your fellow players do respect you, and you feel like they hog the spotlight, you just tell them "I know you're very invested right now, but please remember we are n players and everybody would like to contribute."
Either way, rigid initiative does nothing to address the situation. Though I would say only giving out 3 character tokens at a time is a good way to make invested players realize they have spent a lot of time in the spotlight as they need to ask for/grab more.
As for the "i just don't do anything" situation: Why? Every hit in Daggerheart deals damage. Either Stress or Hitpoints. And if Stress is exhausted, Stress damage escalates to hitpoint damage. Also there's no reason in the narrative for someone to just stand by and watch their allies do all the fighting. At least no more then in any other game.
If a character in the fiction does not present any threat to the enemy, I expect the enemy to ignore them and kill the dangerous foes first. And again: every hit does damage of some kind, so the more hits concentrate on one character, the faster they go down. And once only the "waiting players" are left, we go to the "if the players wait for the gm to do something, the gm does something" tennet.
yeah, even if the rules say you get a turn, asshole GMs have decades of techniques for making that turn not matter
you have a good point that any hit in DH results in progress, but the thing is that both PCs and NPCs have a chance to hit vs miss that serve as a multiplier on whatever they could do on a success, so i can totally see someone running out of things to do if they don't have the wrong damage type or range, or are at low hp
For how combat flow works in Daggerheart, I think it's pretty alright as our table has played ICON before with combat flowing with Player 1, GM then Player 2, GM and etc. This does require the GM to know which moves to use for their statblocks beforehand which is I admit much more prep needed to GMs but simple statblocks should help in this.
What I don't like about the system is that it rewards players who don't take a turn at all. My fix would've been rather than "action tokens" during combat, everyone should be required to play a turn every round. Fear tokens just like how Hope tokens work shouldn't be for making a move but rather a resource in activating powerful abilities that enemies have.
Fear tokens are still needed for the most powerful actions, but having action tokens actually helps negate differences in party size because a GM won't be doing significantly more or less actions than the player party will!
how does it reward player that dont take a turn?
Tbh they should add more ways for a player to halp another..not every one should be amazing in combat snd thats what the system is destiny for..so let the combat play shin..the others can halp whit that spotlight
There is a rule, that the GM doesn't need to take a turn after a roll of fear/failure - they choose to take a turn. So essentially, if taking an action constantly feels weird the GM can let the players keep the next turn. Though, I think this was mentioned in the video.
you forgot wizard between bard and seraph. Wizard has codex and splendor.
About the 50:00 time you say that it isn't a problem at a table where people respect each other. If there is no respect, find a different table.
I'm more incline to homebrew Avatar Legends into a Forgotten Realms than play Daggerheart... The point that puts too much pressure to the GM makes me don't want to play it. That's why I'm starting to like more and appreciate more PbtA systems.
If a player does nothing because it would (may) be a good thing for the GM is the least Role Playing Game thing ever, would their character really do nothing on that scene?? RPGs are about role playing as the name suggests, if players woulb be only meta thinking they maybe should be playing a board game instead of a RPG. I get the things you point out on the video, but maybe they are there exactly to encourage players to Roleplay more and be less grid battler simulator. Nice video BTW, you went into the depth other videos are not going into.
I think one "fix" for the action tracker "problem" is for the game to just lean more heavily on reactive actions that don't generate hope nor fear.
1. The player gets to do stuff, even if they didn't themselves initiate it.
2. It caters to a fantasy that some people really do enjoy. Most tanking if fairly reactive in most games/systems, intercepting a blow, stopping someone from moving, etc. Some people just prefer it to being proactive.
3. It erases the fear that you'll be giving the GM more resources.
4. Since it doesn't generate any hope either, you will eventually run out of it and thus be incentivized to take a regular action to regain hope. Sure, it's possible that this will just result in the player stepping back and not interacting in order to deny the GM their resources but at that point they'd already be in the swing of things. Getting people going is much harder than *keeping* people going, that first step towards engaging with the situation is what we're trying to get past. It may still be mathematically optimal for that player to just do nothing once they're out of hope but at that point they're already engaged and are more likely to want to keep engaging.
I think the combat flow is too free form. I think itd work better if people had a set amount of action tokens and no tokens are given back until everyone has used all their tokens.
A minute later and it's exactly what Wintry said. I 100% agree with you!
not having rounds at all can work, it has worked in PbtA for a long time in many forms, but the problem is that mechanizing it for just the GM and not players, going halfway, just ends up really clunky
they should either have an initiative order and action economy, or just have "the GM takes an action after any roll with Fear"
As with many others discussing this game, I feel that you are highlighting an actual potential problem, but putting the focus on the wrong causal factor. If you are playing with a table which does not display respect for each other, and where "wallflower" players are penalized for being more passive, not only should you not play this game with them, but you should not be paying *any* games with them. Yes, this game has somewhat different demands, and coming from a mindset of only having run D&D (or adjacent) games will require some adjustment to one's thinking. Insisting on trying to run this game as though it was D&D however, will certainly leave one dissatisfied, as it has very different demands and expectations. I've run many types of games over the past 40 years, and this is not an horrifically complex system, as long as one can divorce themselves from the D&D, tactical wargaming type of thinking.
So the goal of the game to exclude people for being shy. Got it.
@@k0jaq No, the idea is to not play at a table that would simply ignore the shy player, and instead play with people who are working together to tell the best story possible, while ensuring that everyone participates. I have a "wallflower" player at my table. We check in with him from time to time, to ensure that he's not feeling left out. As I see it, that's just what one does for their friends. 🤷♂
I answered this as though you were asking in good faith, though I have some serious doubts that engaging in an adult discussion is actually your goal, as not only do I have no idea how you could have possibly misinterpreted my statement so badly with out meaning to, and your tone also indicates a desire to simply attack people with whom you disagree, rather than actually communicating with them.
@Gaurelin You're tone in the first post set the predcent. Don't try to put this on me. You checking in a player isn't the same as letting them play, and I assume you're smart enough to know that. There are many times when a player would say it's okay when it's not. You been around the block. Also, you probably know that people can get excited and jump the gun. Are you assuming that excited players are bad players?
That horse sits high bro. 👌
@@k0jaq Hm. Let's examine this. First of all, I cannot possibly see how you got from me saying that if the shy player is being left out, that's the fault of the social dynamic at the table, and not the game they are playing itself to you deciding I'm suggesting that "the goal of the game is to exclude people for being shy" - those are two very different things, and it smacks of intentional obtuseness.
Secondly, what tone did I have exactly? I was not rude, nasty, nor short tempered, yet your reply was in no way indicative of someone desiring a good faith, adult discussion. Instead, it was just internet snark, meant to denigrate me, and my opinion. News flash - not only is it ok for others to feel differently than you do, but those opinions are just as valid as yours.
Lots of folks seem bound and determined to misrepresent, misunderstand, and dislike this game, simply because it is different than what they're used to. Here's another news flash - D&D (& adjacent) games are not the only games out there, and elements this one is using come from a long and successful lineage of games in the PbtA sphere. Just because it's new and unfamiliar to you, doesn't mean it's untried and/or unworkable.
Will this game suit every player and every table? No, absolutely not. What game does though? Now, if you wish to have an adult discussion - you know, an actual exchange of ideas and opinions, I'm happy to engage in such. If all you wish to do is tell me how wrong I am, and furthermore be childish about it, this interaction is over.
@Gaurelin We are having an adult discussion. Let's not try to pretend like longer posts equal better discussion. And let's not kid ourselves that this whole petty backhanded "adult discussion" comment you keep tagging on your posts isn't anything more you trying to dismiss any comments I make as childish simply because I disagreeed with you post and you got called out for playing in clouds while sitting on your high horse.
You know exactly what tone you were trying to set in your original post, and anyone who has an iota of intelligence can see that.
But it's probably hard to look down at commoners down below while gavalvanting on that horse.
Have a great day. I hope you get to join the rest of us on the ground in the future.