Critical Role's 'Daggerheart' Open Playtest Starts In March

On March 12th, Critical Role's Darrington Press will be launching the open playtest for Daggerheart, their new fantasy TTRPG/

Using cards and two d12s, the system plays on 'the dualities of hope and fear'. The game is slated for a 2025 release.

Almost a year ago, we announced that we’ve been working hard behind-the-scenes on Daggerheart, our contribution to the world of high-fantasy tabletop roleplaying games.

Daggerheart is a game of brave heroics and vibrant worlds that are built together with your gaming group. Create a shared story with your adventuring party, and shape your world through rich, long-term campaign play.

When it’s time for the game mechanics to control fate, players roll one HOPE die and one FEAR die (both 12-sided dice), which will ultimately impact the outcome for your characters. This duality between the forces of hope and fear on every hero drives the unique character-focused narratives in Daggerheart.

In addition to dice, Daggerheart’s card system makes it easy to get started and satisfying to grow your abilities by bringing your characters’ background and capabilities to your fingertips. Ancestry and Community cards describe where you come from and how your experience shapes your customs and values. Meanwhile, your Subclass and Domain cards grant your character plenty of tantalizing abilities to choose from as your character evolves.

And now, dear reader, we’re excited to let you know that our Daggerheart Open Beta Playtest will launch globally on our 9th anniversary, Tuesday, March 12th!

We want anyone and everyone (over the age of 18, please) to help us make Daggerheart as wonderful as possible, which means…helping us break the game. Seriously! The game is not finished or polished yet, which is why it’s critical (ha!) to gather all of your feedback ahead of Daggerheart’s public release in 2025.

 

[TwoSix]

Action rolls are 2d12 but attack rolls are d20! Why? This is system aesthetically jarring, I hate this! Use the same formula for both!

I haven't played, but from what I read/watched, all player rolls are 2d12. Only DM rolls are 1d20.

How the damage works seems unnecessarily convoluted. You roll the damage, and compare it to thresholds. So far so good. However, then instead of the thresholds actually corresponding different types of wounds, they're just used to convert the damage to hit point damage. This is inelegant. If the different thresholds do nothing more interesting than help to convert bigger damage numbers into smaller HP numbers they seems like an unnecessary step. Either use D&D style direct HP pools, or if thresholds are used then let them produce actually meaningfully different types of wounds.

I think the point of it, at least for my interpretation, is that damage amounts are metagame, but actual hit point loss is diegetic. Every hit point is a big chunk, and losing even 1 represents an in-narrative event that caused some sort of damage. That lets a cure spell that heals 2 damage represent a similar narrative in-fiction, even though it's healing way more "damage" on a warrior compared to a wizard, thanks to their very different thresholds.

I see your point, but I do think there's benefits to the current method.

I don't like how the armour works. This game has already enough things to track. It also is hella weird how your armour can be rendered completely useless after few hits. And as many armours incur penalties for wearing them, the logical thing is to unequip them after they've been used up. Characters constantly equipping and unequipping armour this way would be weird and jarring. I think armour providing simple passive damage reduction would be more logical and easier to use. I get that making decisions whether to use the resource ort not is potentially interesting, but this game has enough of that already, and this is not particularly interesting decision. If it is a big hit you use it.

Yea, I lean your way here. I think making Thresholds equal to 0+Armor/5+Armor/10+Armor, and then having class features and powers be able to permanently or temporarily raise Thresholds and/or block damage might make sense with a similar resource economy.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Action rolls are 2d12 but attack rolls are d20! Why? This is system aesthetically jarring, I hate this! Use the same formula for both!

actually, i think how it works is PCs roll 2d12, and the GM rolls d20s. i have to assume this is because NPCs can't generate hope or fear so the writers thought it made sense to swap for d20s to them, but...yeah, it's kinda gross, even if it's separated by the GM/player line.

How the damage works seems unnecessarily convoluted. You roll the damage, and compare it to thresholds. So far so good. However, then instead of the thresholds actually corresponding different types of wounds, they're just used to convert the damage to hit point damage. This is inelegant. If the different thresholds do nothing more interesting than help to convert bigger damage numbers into smaller HP numbers they seems like an unnecessary step. Either use D&D style direct HP pools, or if thresholds are used then let them produce actually meaningfully different types of wounds.

yeah, i thought the same thing reading through it. i remember explicitly thinking "Why is it called damage if it ISN'T DAMAGE? It's just used to see if it breaks your threshold and then - I HATE this." you're right that it feels like an unnecessary step.

I don't like how the armour works. This game has already enough things to track. It also is hella weird how your armour can be rendered completely useless after few hits. And as many armours incur penalties for wearing them, the logical thing is to unequip them after they've been used up. Characters constantly equipping and unequipping armour this way would be weird and jarring.

i actually think this could be thematically very interesting...in a pulp game. go into a fight well stocked, your armor gets shredded, by the time you're at the final boss you've ditched it. that's fitting, but i don't think it's fitting for the type of fiction daggerheart is going for.

 

[Reynard]

yeah, i thought the same thing reading through it. i remember explicitly thinking "Why is it called damage if it ISN'T DAMAGE? It's just used to see if it breaks your threshold and then - I HATE this." you're right that it feels like an unnecessary step.

It is easier to subtract 2 from 7 than it is to subtract 13 from 52. It also works to lessen the impact of outsized rolls and reduce swinginess, since no matter what damage is rolled, the actual hit point loss is always 1, 2 or 3. Remember, this game is intended to be narrative. It benefits from numerical results within an expected range most of the time.

 

[pemerton]

Come on friends! Fear and Hope, the central thematic axis of the game, as clumsy meta-currencies that clash with the purposed "Story Centric" ambitions stated by the game? Commoditization, as an answer to help determine legitimacy of actions, was Fate's misguided answer towards narrative gaming. We tried that already!

They are a pacing tool...where the agent is random generation and the subject are the humans at the table. It is us who are being paced...

What's your view of Marvel Heroic RP and the Doom Pool. I've had good experiences with that system. Are you similarly critical of it? Or do you think there is a difference between it and DaggerHeart that is to Daggerheart's disadvantage?

I'm still only at the start of Part 2 of the DH rulebook, so haven't formed my own view yet.

 

[pemerton]

My biggest concern is how hope and fear currencies, especially fear, interface with GM Moves. In systems like 2d20 threat is used to apply the equivalent of hard moves in a game system that otherwise does not integrate them. Based on my initial combat tests I feel like it functions fairly well in that more structured environment, but I think I need more active game experience to see how to integrate PbtA/FitD GM Moves with the Cortex/2d20 style GM currencies.

This is a thoughtful post - thanks!

 

[andreszarta]

What's your view of Marvel Heroic RP and the Doom Pool. I've had good experiences with that system. Are you similarly critical of it? Or do you think there is a difference between it and DaggerHeart that is to Daggerheart's disadvantage?

I'm still only at the start of Part 2 of the DH rulebook, so haven't formed my own view yet.

Hey Permeton! It's nice to chat with you again.

I have 0 problems with metacurrencies as game designer's tool. I'm not terribly familiar with MHRP but from my quick online search and readthrough of the Basic Manual tells me that its a game with a very rigid and intentional scene structure, both in terms how scenes get introduced and how narrational rights get passed around. It seems like there is a clear and transparent arrangement of what is possible with and without the use of these metacurrencies...some asides:

Events -> Acts -> Scenes -> Panels

Actions Scenes vs Transition Scenes

"Everyone gets a panel of their own to act…."

"It’s the player of the character who just acted that determines who goes next."

"Sometimes, you can set aside the action order for a few minutes while there is a break in the action."
"Typically, the Scene itself ends in one of to ways. Either the heroes stop the villains, avert disaster, and claim victory over the challenge, or the alternative happens. (...) The Watcher summarizes the action so far, touches base with each player to note where his or her hero ended up, and then frames the next Scene."

Within a panel you can spend your dice to do X, Y and Z. And that's it. Those are your possible purchases.

As the Watcher, you can always cut the Scene early…by spending 2d12 out of the doom pool and (handing out XP).

(I'll continue my thoughts in the next reply, I sent this one by mistake.)

 

[andreszarta]

What's your view of Marvel Heroic RP and the Doom Pool. I've had good experiences with that system.

Neat, elegant, I love what I am reading!

Daggerheart does not purport itself to be that kind of rigidly structured game. It wants to have a FitD-like narrative structure. It says it right in the manuscript.

Focusing solely on the Fear side of the equation.This resource is used for several purposes: it allows the GM to "buy" interesting abilities for monsters in combat; it's used to tip various scales and exchange for different currencies that favor the adversaries, such as extra damage, advantage, clearing conditions, etc.; and it “enables” a purported full use of their GM fiat.

When this resource is spent, you can “activate” what's written on your different toys or just do something else that's "Big", and you have SO many options to choose from, including NOT using them at all and just narrating what's next. On top of that, there are a series of directives that help you determine the best choice to make (your Blades-like principles, which sometimes invite you to be harsh and at other times lenient in the spirit of story gaming). This leads me to question why put such a decision behind this absurd construction of “buying the effects” instead of simply taking actions that OBEY YOUR PRINCIPLES OUTRIGHT. You are already directed to follow your principles, you are already guaranteed to have everything you need make the right choice. We know this because that's how Blades and AW work. Why the hell do you need budgeting for!?

You bringing up Marvel Heroic RP brings an excellent point. It truly makes me think that that kind of more rigid structure could be REALLY neat for the game they are trying to make. It already fits with the kind of game Critical Role plays (Action + RP heavy scenes, clearly separated) and their apparent central thematic/mechanical conceit (Fear and Hope). Specially when those metacurrencies are being generated every other roll. Maybe they should hire you for the rewrite.

 

[Manbearcat]

Neat, elegant, I love what I am reading!

Daggerheart does not purport itself to be that kind of rigidly structured game. It wants to have a FitD-like narrative structure. It says it right in the manuscript.

Focusing solely on the Fear side of the equation.This resource is used for several purposes: it allows the GM to "buy" interesting abilities for monsters in combat; it's used to tip various scales and exchange for different currencies that favor the adversaries, such as extra damage, advantage, clearing conditions, etc.; and it “enables” a purported full use of their GM fiat.

When this resource is spent, you can “activate” what's written on your different toys or just do something else that's "Big", and you have SO many options to choose from, including NOT using them at all and just narrating what's next. On top of that, there are a series of directives that help you determine the best choice to make (your Blades-like principles, which sometimes invite you to be harsh and at other times lenient in the spirit of story gaming). This leads me to question why put such a decision behind this absurd construction of “buying the effects” instead of simply taking actions that OBEY YOUR PRINCIPLES OUTRIGHT. You are already directed to follow your principles, you are already guaranteed to have everything you need make the right choice. We know this because that's how Blades and AW work.

You bringing up Marvel Heroic RP brings an excellent point. It truly makes me think that that kind of more rigid structure could be REALLY neat for the game they are trying to make. It already fits with the kind of game Critical Role plays (Action + RP heavy scenes, clearly separated) and their apparent central thematic/mechanical conceit (Fear and Hope). Specially when those metacurrencies are being generated every other roll. Maybe they should hire you for the rewrite.

Not a lot of time to respond (Stonetop in 10 minutes!), and I’m not @pemerton , but my (utterly uninformed as I’ve only scanned and discussed with pals…I need to read the rules and digest them fully…I’ve got 6 weeks!) reflex reply to this is:

GMing is different when your “opposition budget” (like introducing complications, deploying scene-Enders, rostering out enemy arrays or changing them) is rationed and on some kind of systemitized/integrated economy.

For instance, generating a Blades in the Dark Score is different than generating a Torchbearer Adventure precisely because of the dynamics above (Torchbearer has a codified system for budgeting and rostering the obstacles/situations for Short/Medium/Long Adventures whereas Blades exclusively follows the AW model).

They make for different experiences and different cognitive spaces for the participants (the GM especially). I very much like both.

EDIT: The big question for me is “does the opposition/complication budget system work.” No clue.

 

[andreszarta]

Not a lot of time to respond (Stonetop in 10 minutes!), and I’m not @pemerton , but my (utterly uninformed as I’ve only scanned and discussed with pals…I need to read the rules and digest them fully…I’ve got 6 weeks!) reflex reply to this is:

GMing is different when your “opposition budget” (like introducing complications, deploying scene-Enders, rostering out enemy arrays or changing them) is rationed and on some kind of systemitized/integrated economy.

For instance, generating a Blades in the Dark Score is different than generating a Torchbearer Adventure precisely because of the dynamics above (Torchbearer has a codified system for budgeting and rostering the obstacles/situations for Short/Medium/Long Adventures whereas Blades exclusively follows the AW model).

They make for different experiences and different cognitive spaces for the participants (the GM especially). I very much like both.

This makes total sense to me! I don't know if we'll draw the same conclusions from it once you read and play, but I'm happy to agree with you on this initial point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

DnD Shorts has pretty decent (and short!) review. It is somewhat positive, but also highlight several potential problem areas. Hope and fear generation seems to be a bit exceeive, so there is constantly more than you can spend. It is not rules light, there is a ton of rules and it pretty complex. But most damning criticism to me was the fact that due how the actions are generated, sometimes it is optimal for a PC to do nothing at all in combat. This really should never be the case.

I don't like the assumption that a game not being rules light is a criticism.