I don’t need to remember it. I’m in the middle of replaying Baldur’s Gate 1. But that was more of a complicated math formula to derive something that we can do much more simply. The hope and fear thing not only reminds me of that scam curriculum in Donnie Darko, it also doesn’t feel like an interesting tactical layer; it does the opposite by interfering with initiative in a way that I’m not a fan of.
It’s interesting and it seems like a good change for people that have done a lot of d&d but it’s probably not going to be a complete replacement for 5e. It seems good for short campaigns but it only has one book out for now.
It’s rooted in the light/dark side of the force from Star Wars tabletop, and kind of inherent to Star Wars is making out everything in the world to be light or dark as though it’s that simple, but hardly anything in life is.
I can see why the comparison to Genysis would exist now but I don’t think it’s a very worthwhile comparison to make in how they play out and are used in each system.
I don’t think any designer has ever said it is from Star Wars, and it most definitely does not use them as Light Side/Dark Side or imposed morality. It’s inspired by the Genesys rpg system of degrees of success/failure and has narrative effects like “Yes, but” and “No, however”.
I’d seen it written up in other articles as coming from Star Wars, so perhaps it was that writer that was mistaken. I’ve watched them play, heard the rules explanations and such, and “yes, but” and “no, however” to skill checks aren’t solving some problem I’ve had in other systems.
It comes from the FFG Star wars RPG system and its method of creating multiple success/failure conditions. It’s an entirely independent system to the light/dark side force mechanics.
That’s fair if it’s not solving a problem for you, but it does add something new that resonates with a lot of people (at least it did for me). I’m speaking from the Genesys side so I don’t know how daggerheart handles it, but I absolutely loved it. I found it made skill checks more collaborative, my table would suggest ideas for how to interpret the roll, and having more to ‘explain’ got people more descriptive in how they talk about their actions. We went from ‘I take a swing. Nope, that’s a miss’ to ‘failure with advantage, ok I go in with my axe but I can’t get through this guy’s defenses. For my advantage, I want to hook this guys shield with my axe so the next attacker gets a boost die to hit’.
It does make checks more involved, but I prefer fewer, more impactful checks as a general rule anyway.
Sure, it’s not solving anything, but IMO it’s fun giving the GM a tokenified response currency even though you pull off a success. I’ve seen a fair amount of backlash, but just feel portraying the dice mechanic as Star Wars is miles off base, when it adds a narrative prompt for success/failure (D&D does this with nat20/nat1).
I’ll grant you I’m not typically the GM. From your perspective, do you see it making things more interesting as a GM? Because as a player, it’s less up my alley, and the GM’s response currency without that system is whatever they want it to be, because they’re the GM.
It does, I think. It powers “lair actions”, gives powers like interrupting turn sequence, making multiple moves in sequence. When the GM has a pool of currency players can see, there’s an unsaid acknowledgement things are going wrong/badly, which helps fuel collaboration in the storytelling aspect. I can say that someone fails an attack, but on a fail with fear they miss the attack AND leave themselves open to a harsh counterattack, or perhaps lose their weapon. I can do all of this off the cuff in D&D because ‘GM said so’, but then the players can feel an adversarial relationship instead of collaborative, which is so much more encouraged in Daggerheart.
All entirely subjective, and at its core it’s still heroic fantasy same as hundreds of other systems and if you are put off by rolling two dice for metacurrency, it’s likely not for you.
That interrupting turn sequence part is the one that upsets me the most, and I’m not fond of the extra drag on pacing that the "yes, but"s and "no, however"s can have over time. If they are putting their weight behind it, I hope it’s resonating with others, but if they intend to ever replace their D&D with Daggerheart, I wouldn’t be thrilled with the substitution.
I really hope they’re not putting their weight behind Daggerheart long term. That whole hope and fear system is so unappealing.
If you can remember THACO, tabletop games have survived needing to change a few systems in the past
I don’t need to remember it. I’m in the middle of replaying Baldur’s Gate 1. But that was more of a complicated math formula to derive something that we can do much more simply. The hope and fear thing not only reminds me of that scam curriculum in Donnie Darko, it also doesn’t feel like an interesting tactical layer; it does the opposite by interfering with initiative in a way that I’m not a fan of.
It’s interesting and it seems like a good change for people that have done a lot of d&d but it’s probably not going to be a complete replacement for 5e. It seems good for short campaigns but it only has one book out for now.
I’ve never ran it, but what don’t you like about it?
It’s rooted in the light/dark side of the force from Star Wars tabletop, and kind of inherent to Star Wars is making out everything in the world to be light or dark as though it’s that simple, but hardly anything in life is.
I have never seen hope/fear described as light/dark from star wars, and I’ve read the Daggerheart rules.
It came from here.
I can see why the comparison to Genysis would exist now but I don’t think it’s a very worthwhile comparison to make in how they play out and are used in each system.
I don’t think any designer has ever said it is from Star Wars, and it most definitely does not use them as Light Side/Dark Side or imposed morality. It’s inspired by the Genesys rpg system of degrees of success/failure and has narrative effects like “Yes, but” and “No, however”.
I’d seen it written up in other articles as coming from Star Wars, so perhaps it was that writer that was mistaken. I’ve watched them play, heard the rules explanations and such, and “yes, but” and “no, however” to skill checks aren’t solving some problem I’ve had in other systems.
It comes from the FFG Star wars RPG system and its method of creating multiple success/failure conditions. It’s an entirely independent system to the light/dark side force mechanics.
That’s fair if it’s not solving a problem for you, but it does add something new that resonates with a lot of people (at least it did for me). I’m speaking from the Genesys side so I don’t know how daggerheart handles it, but I absolutely loved it. I found it made skill checks more collaborative, my table would suggest ideas for how to interpret the roll, and having more to ‘explain’ got people more descriptive in how they talk about their actions. We went from ‘I take a swing. Nope, that’s a miss’ to ‘failure with advantage, ok I go in with my axe but I can’t get through this guy’s defenses. For my advantage, I want to hook this guys shield with my axe so the next attacker gets a boost die to hit’.
It does make checks more involved, but I prefer fewer, more impactful checks as a general rule anyway.
Sure, it’s not solving anything, but IMO it’s fun giving the GM a tokenified response currency even though you pull off a success. I’ve seen a fair amount of backlash, but just feel portraying the dice mechanic as Star Wars is miles off base, when it adds a narrative prompt for success/failure (D&D does this with nat20/nat1).
I’ll grant you I’m not typically the GM. From your perspective, do you see it making things more interesting as a GM? Because as a player, it’s less up my alley, and the GM’s response currency without that system is whatever they want it to be, because they’re the GM.
It does, I think. It powers “lair actions”, gives powers like interrupting turn sequence, making multiple moves in sequence. When the GM has a pool of currency players can see, there’s an unsaid acknowledgement things are going wrong/badly, which helps fuel collaboration in the storytelling aspect. I can say that someone fails an attack, but on a fail with fear they miss the attack AND leave themselves open to a harsh counterattack, or perhaps lose their weapon. I can do all of this off the cuff in D&D because ‘GM said so’, but then the players can feel an adversarial relationship instead of collaborative, which is so much more encouraged in Daggerheart.
All entirely subjective, and at its core it’s still heroic fantasy same as hundreds of other systems and if you are put off by rolling two dice for metacurrency, it’s likely not for you.
That interrupting turn sequence part is the one that upsets me the most, and I’m not fond of the extra drag on pacing that the "yes, but"s and "no, however"s can have over time. If they are putting their weight behind it, I hope it’s resonating with others, but if they intend to ever replace their D&D with Daggerheart, I wouldn’t be thrilled with the substitution.