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.
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.
Totally valid. I assume you like combat simulators like Dungeons and Dragons. Is that the case? If not, what do you dislike about PbtA?
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.
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.
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.
Gotcha.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that PbtA has a narrower statistical distribution of dice rolls than games that you like. In other words, PbtA might relatively flatten the probability of everything, while other games make some things just flat out either impossible or trivial (depending on your characters’ level).
At the same time, character proficiency is not trivial. In other words, an incompetent character will definitely fail much more than a competent character. The Apocalypse World creator did the math for us:
Imagine going from 30% likelihood of success to 90% likelihood of success.
Regardless, I still concede that other games could be much more brutal or much more lenient (depending on character competence). And this, on its own, could be seen as a bug and not a feature. I happen to see it as a feature: try it out, burn the world down, rebuild it, all in one session. The story coming out of that session will be probably be interesting!
Now, as to overconstrained characters, I also agree here. 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. This is not just speculation, it’s a fact. Take Ironsworn or Starforged. Both of those games have ridiculous flexibility around character creation. You don’t have playbooks: all characters start with the same blank slate of a character sheet. You build your character with combinations of cards, and there are hundreds of them.