(Author’s Note: this post was written based on the Daggerheart Open Beta v1.5)
I have picked up many TTRPG systems, and they all have something to like. Every system has some hook, whether a clever mechanic, compelling world building, or something else that gets me excited.
And yet, none of them got me excited enough to start writing a blog and gather my gaming friends for an immediate one-shot just to try it out.
What’s odd is that, on the surface, Daggerheart doesn’t really have an obvious, unique selling point. It’s a bit of a mashup, but I’m optimistic that it’s exactly the mashup I like.
Let me walk through this explanation by contrast.
My feelings about D&D
I started mostly with D&D, and D&D slows down because it has too many rules and constraints. Many players (especially spellcasters) don’t really have a good grip on what their character can do. When it’s their turn and they haven’t thought about what to do or what the ruling on their abilities are, we go back to the rulebook. Rather than playing the game, we’re just wrapping our head around rules to make things work.
And even when players do get the rules, they can be surprisingly unfun and limiting. I absolutely get why opportunity attacks are necessary for balance, but they are just a bummer. Combat can easily turn monotonous grinding away at hit points like a Monty Python duel.
I wanted something more dynamic where players could really flex their creativity and be rewarded for trying something crazy.
My feelings about rules-light
Since then, I have tried out a variety of more rules-light systems that rely more on adjudication at the table. My problem there is that action adjudication at the table also really bogs down the game. For example, Blades in the Dark has a wonderfully rich system for figuring out how to resolve a single action. However, something like “I sneak past the guard” requires at least five different decisions, and negotiating those could easily take five minutes.
Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) provides really interesting prompts with the moves that players and GMs can take. However, I felt like I didn’t quite have enough power to adjust difficulty. I know it’s more about consequences than difficulty, but then, I found myself needing to adjudicate a lot of that.
And I oddly felt like the flexibility meant that sometimes, the player didn’t earn their wins because the GM let them have it. Combat in PbtA felt like it shined when it was a bit fuzzy, but I think my players wanted more structure than that.
Rules-medium?
Until now, I thought this might be an unsolvable paradox: there’s a fundamental tradeoff between flexibility and decisiveness in a game. If the rules are too crunchy, it’s limiting and a lot of upfront mental load. If the rules are too light, then everything is adjudicated at the table. Either way, I wanted a system that felt like it was supporting me in keeping the action moving. I will happily take the blame for doing it wrong, but that still left me searching.
I had become increasingly critical of this in looking at new systems: most books now include “Examples of Play.” They always seem way more fun, punchy, and dynamic than the way things actually pan out at the table. They’re cherry-picking for how their system shines and cut out any of the confusion that might normally plague a table.
Why Daggeheart
However, when I look at Daggerheart, I’m cautiously optimistic that it threads the needle.
On the one hand, rolls are mostly simple, binary dice checks. However, the system adds just enough wrinkle with hope and fear to give DMs wiggle room for secondary consequences (good or bad).
The flexible turn structure of combat can allow players to have their Legolas moments while building in the balance of action counters to avoid arbitrary balance decisions.
The character creation options and rules are quite clear and explicit about what is possible. However, they’re also limited by the Loadout to prevent a player from getting too many options to remember and handle.
The modifiers and math are real: there’s both growth and distinguishing characteristics. However, the modifiers stay within a manageable bound over time to keep everything relevant and easily calculated.
In short, I think they were able to mix-and-match the system they wanted. D&D is encumbered by being D&D and needing to maintain certain legacy aspects that really don’t serve the game well. DH strips those parts away and borrows from other systems to make it work.
All of that being said, I still haven’t played a session yet, and I’m looking forward to trying it out.
Leave a Reply