Cisco
Daggerheart Version 1.3 Updates with Matthew Mercer and
Daggerheart Version 1.3 Updates with Matthew Mercer and Spenser Starke | Open Beta | Livestream
#Daggerheart #Version #Updates #Matthew #Mercer
“Critical Role”
Spenser Starke and Matthew Mercer walk you through the changes to Dagggerheart in version 1.3! Dive into the updates, learn …
source
To see the full content, share this page by clicking one of the buttons below |
The new advantage and disadvantage rolls do not solve the issue with the previous iteration: Spending a hope to give a party member advantage on average is much better then spending a hope to use your experiences. With the updated rules this problem only becomes worse as you are now introducing a bell curve distribution ( 2 d 6 take the best ) rather then a linear one ( +1d6 ). The way to solve this would be to collapse the "help" rules and the "experiences" rules so that to help another party member you spend one hope and add a number of tokens ( representing +1's ) equal to your experience score to the roll. This makes experiences more relevant at the table and keeps them from being a dominated strategy ( it's always better to give help then to use an experience mathematically ).
I like the change in advantage and disadvantage more generally, however I think that the game would be better served with the aforementioned changes.
I really love the free flowing combat and wish It wasn't as difficult for something to follow because the change we have seen in our gains is amazing.
Now we just need your one shot continued using the updated rules!!
In my experience playing social conflict in dresden files rpg (based on an older version of FATE), social conflict is a big mixed bag. It makes social encounters a rigidly mechanical affair. This is great for people who love combat and hate talking. So if you have a table full of wargamers who also hate the freeform improv of how a ruleless social encounter plays out (they see it as "mother may I" and dislike that they must convince the gm rather than use character stats) then mechanical social conflict is awesome. In FATE it supports a very flavorful approach as well with hiw they use aspects.
But idk if its gonna be good for a mixed table where someone rolls a charisma charcter because they wanna improv at the table and get narrative results largely from improv skills and creativity rather than strictly from mechanics.
If im honest, i dont like the idea of giving enemies stress. Something i really liked about daggerheart was the balance of gm sided complexity vs player sided complexity. Gm's will always have more to do than pc's, so i appreciate any game where pc's have a lot of gritty detail to them but they interact with monsters that are very simple by comparison (something dnd 5e completely fails at).
I really think monsters having evasion, thresholds, hp, and a fear based ability is the perfect amount of complexity for a gm to run a whole bunch of monsters. It was particularly elegant because they shared a single fear resource pool for the gm to track. Now, if they all have stress to track as well, we're basically doubling the amount of stuff to track for the gm (6 enemies, you used to have to trrack 6hp pools and a single fear pool. Now you need to track 6hp pools, 6 stress pools, and a single fear pool). I much prefer if they keep the fat trimmed.
23:40 So if you are wandering through a party and you are an introvert and your social battery drains faster than shaken coke, are you screwed? And if you're an attention-seeking extrovert, does your social battery actually charge up and reduce stress points?
The Ranger Companion sheet already feels so much better, it no longer feels like its just a show for combat until later.
I love the game ideas and concepts so far! Haven't had a chance to play yet, but trying to make time for it with my group in a couple weeks!
My biggest concern in just reading through the 1.2 rules is just the difficulty scale of suggested DCs. For one, a crit is just sooooo much more likely than the 5% of a d20 system, and my fear is that it is going to make players less likely to specialize on non-combat skills. If it is so likely to crit, or get advantage, or fail with hope with no or minimal consequences, then your priority becomes to focus on dealing or tanking damage and then taking the gamble to succeed on wooing the npc, or picking a lock. Again, I didn't get to play things out yet, so maybe it is overblown, but a base character without a bonus, but with advantage can cap the difficulty scale out even without a crit roll… and that just feels to generous? So much of the fun of tabletop is in failure and finding creative solutions to less than ideal situations. I feel like boosting the DCs would guide characters towards more utility-focused builds, and allow for more story beats.
But again, it looks awesome! I love the simplification of the money system, and damage thresholds, and the way armor and weapons scale… my fear was that it was going to be a D&D clone, and I am so excited to try out how these other systems play out, and if they make the gameplay flow easier. Hopefully in another week or two my friends and I will get a chance to actually play test it.
Convert chests to fine gems that you can carry…
there is no perfect game that will satisfy everyone. If you're trying to make everyone happy and incorporate every nerdy nitpicking comment into the game, it's going to be a huge mess and then no one wants to play it. I'm feeling this democratization of game development will not lead to a good outcome.
The armour changes are terrible. Only Leather and Chainmail are worth taking now. The negatives from Breastplate and Full Plate aren't worth it comparatively to the other 2 options for only 1 extra armour.
I see why taking damage under your minor threshold no longer costs Stress lol… because everyone's minor threshold is now 1, and almost every way to increase you minor threshold has been removed <_>
Also, why did the Guardian level up options to increase major and severe thresholds get nerfed? For a class designed to have the highest damage thresholds, seems weird that you made investing level-up traits to increase your thresholds worse for them specifically.
Does the new loadout sheet mean you can have 6 active domain cards now?
Q&A section starts at 54:00
I made a multi-dice system from scratch I've been working on and off for like 2 years that utilizes D10s and D20s. My solution for Help actions was that the person helping allows the other person to substitute their bonus with their own. What this means is if one person wants to Help and has a +5 modifier and the person they're helping has a -3 they would use your +5 instead. Some of the things I made for my game I have seen in your own with a mild variation (like the tiered damage system, but mine only has two tiers instead of three). Makes me glad to see others making similar choices in design for future games as well, especially folks with as much experience as you all.
Main issues I had playing seem to have been addressed in this video
Obviously haven't run the new version, but the changes to stress to expand its uses in social interaction sound really cool. The action tokens are a welcome change as well, I don't find fully freeform initiative to be easy to manage at the table.
At around the 59minute mark, it sounds like Spencer has backed himself into a rigid initiative argument. It's not about what is most efficient, but about the story and what your character is doing in the moment. As in like what is your character (and everyone else's) doing in say.. a six second time slot, and then the next, and then the next. Because honestly, that argument doesn't feel like it applies to the original DH initiative. Because the 'open initiative' system doesn't encourage that (or at least the previous version didn't). The group could plan out their cool, narrative combat actions, and one bad roll switches over to the GM.
you should have updated the Quickstart Adventure. It's meant to teach the rules and now I have to refer to the new rules or go with 1.2.
Is there any Fall damage???
@Critical Role Team – The card PDFs have a lot of wasted surface area which makes them hard to print efficiently. The All Cards V1.3 PDF has an effective 9 (nearly 10) pages of empty printing. The Class PDFs have the cards organised to print specific domains so I feel the All Cards could be made to be very print friendly.
Petition to rename short/long rests to Rest (long) and Respite (short)
This over complicated mess is what happens when you make your neurosis and mental health problems a game mechanic
I'm glad they made the initiative and range band rules optional, but it is unfortunate that playtest feedback seems to be trying to push this game to be "alternative D&D". Abstract range and freeform initiative is not new in the TTRPG space. I wish players were more open to try something different than tactical D&D and PF traditions. Kudos to Darrington for coming up with optional rules to appease those who struggle with trying something new.
I want to understand reactions better, in my Game there was a player that had two "reactions" and he wanted to use them but froze because of the lack of structure in combat. What is too much? There are no turns. I think its a heavy weight on the player that wants to play properly. Anyone got ideas?
@1:16:50 – "You may have bested me now, but this is not my final form!!"
I don't run JRPGish TTRPGs personally, but I'm sure they are desired somewhere.
Holy… that guy looks like Matt’s working him to the brink haha hair crazier than last update.
I enjoyed running the 1.2 quick start adventure. Planning on running it again with a different group in 1.3. I do really enjoy the collaborative play, we had a fun moment where I asked to players to come up with the name of the starting city for the adventure. We have a local bar D&D game set in a fictional version of our city with a slightly different name. What came out was a very humorous riff on the city's history. Before our city got its official name it was called "Jamstown". As the city was formed by a group of timberman around the river responsible for clearing log jams. Thru some more riffing the eventual name became "Schmuckersville" where the major export was fruit preserves. We all had a great time getting there, it took 5 min and was a great way to kick off the adventure.
I really wanna like this but one of the main complaints about all other systems is that they are convoluted and there is so much un needed mechanics that it slows down playing and daggerheart seems even more complex and that there is way to many mechanics then is actually needed
Sounds like they're having to back off of (or at least provide alternatives to) the "Narrative Forward" aspects of the game, because they found out that most people don't like playing that way. You can almost hear the disappointment in their voices when they describe the alternative initiative system. "Well, I guess if you're a crappy GM, you can use this other system. Hopefully, you'll eventually git gud and play the game properly". Spenser seems deeply offended by the idea that people would try to play the game tactically. I think their creative instincts are pulling them towards a "Powered by the Apocalypse" style game, but their business sense tells them they need to appeal to 5e players who want more defined numbers and less improv. Good luck threading that needle!
Hi, first of all, I love the work you guys are doing with Daggerheart and the passion you are putting into the open beta process! Congratulations, you are great!
I have a comment about the armor mechanincs.
My impression is that the whole idea behind the few-HP-pool combined with the tresholds system is to reduce the continuous calculation of damage/remaining HP by the players. This is a great attitude, however I feel like it is invalidated by the fact that you have to SUBTRACT the armor value every time before comparing with damage tresholds. Often you need to do the calculation to actually know how if it is worth to use the armor slot or not (i.e. if it would not reduce the damage below the treshold). I noticed that for many player this is actually a non-intuitive and relatively time consuming mechanics.
I have an idea: what if the armor slot was actually changed to just reduce the damage category by one (like severe to major, major to minor).
Armor should then be reworked -> instead of giving a number (to subtract), just to increase the number of armor slot you have, or maybe increasing the damage tresholds? (maybe the heavy – medium – light armor could affect differently the minor – major – severe tresholds?).
This way, damage treshold would still have sense, but player would totally avoid the calculations and just compare the damage to the tresholds (a much more intuitive mechanics!)
What do you guys think?
I hope they do not LOSE the core substance of the game being Largely controlled by the Narative and not the rules. Rules are good where needed but the one thing that makes Daggerheart feel different is that it ISNT trying to be to regimented and Rigid. The danger of trying to lock down to much is losing that. its a dangerous slope to try to be all things to everyone. I am fine with this game being NON crunchy and rukes heavy. If I want that there are other games. I love the free and open feeling of Daggerheart so far.
Its funny to me that I only watched the introduction video and the first one-shot they made and still I predicted all those problem and needed fixes… without playing it myself… HOW?!
The action token rule love it keeps things fair!!
is the mad scientist look on purpose or did he just wake up? 😀
The action token system should 100% be the default recommended system. And I might even say 2 tokens rather than 3 would be better to avoid a buildup on people who struggle with paralysis.
There is so much socially that can go wrong with the loose system. Primarily that, tactically, if a less effective player takes even one turn, it could literally be the straw that breaks the camel's back into a TPK. And there is no way that isn't going to cause animosity between the players, GM, or the system itself.
Free-flowing narrative CAN work if everyone at the table is very supportive and comfortable with one another and where they are taking the story. Initiative systems WILL work and HAVE worked for decades to establish a fairly agreed upon narrative that makes realistic sense and insures inclusion of all players collaboration.
I just don't think the wheel needs to be reinvented here, and it will seriously turn people away from the system after a bad experience.
Free form should be the variant option.
I noticed the Playtest Manuscript is absent from the 1.3 Package, so new players might not have any clarity on how to play the game going forward. Can we get a link on the site to previous manuscripts?
D&D isn't about Satanism. But now, with 6-6-6, (18:21) Daggerheart is. lol
I’m imagining the conversation determining what “bite” the Fungral gets to eat when their party members die.
Still not a big fan, making a ton of rules being "Opened" or "improvisational" when others arnt is annoying. Either make a system that is improve based with basic rolling or make a system that tries to apply rules for most things but streamline them.
Trying to do both is not the right direction. This system has similar issues to 5E when it come to "GM discretion" only difference is Daggerheart does it intentionally. Which from my point of view is even worse.
At the end of the day many a Critter will buy this and not care how it plays, just like how people still play 5E dispite all it's flaws. Which is fine with me, to each there own.
If you have a Door environment then you must of course have a Chair environment.
Spencer's ADHD was all over the place 🤣 I can relate…
1:14:04 what do you mean keep Analysis Paralysis down ?
The Entire system is build on Analysis Paralysis, since nothing is really defined or set in stone, most of it is "Ask your GM", so you basically need 5 different plans in case GM says no.
Daggerhearth, a game for people who thougth that being a GM is not stressfull enough.
Distances ? Ask your GM !
Time ? Ask your GM !
Can I shrugg of condition ? Ask your GM !
Can I move ? Ask your GM !
Is it my turn ? Ask your GM !
Can I do a thing ? Ask your GM !
I love how genuine it feels like the adjustments and changes are aimed at fun, rather than leaning towards a hyper specific nerf or buff that a change might be.
If Gold is tracked in coins, handfuls, bags and chests and those are all multiples of ten, then if I had 325 gold, I'd write it as 3 bags, 2 handfuls and 5 coins? How is that easier?