rpg

3994 readers

25 users here now

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

Rules (wip):

Do not distribute pirate content
Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
Do not advertise for livestreams
Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
No Zak S content.
Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Daggerheart: I expected another Dungeons and Dragons, but found something much, much better (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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] 2 points 2 days 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.