I only watched parts of the Critical Role stuff but I believe they never released a session zero?
Also, Daggerheart is newly released so it might be interesting just because of that.
I only watched parts of the Critical Role stuff but I believe they never released a session zero?
Also, Daggerheart is newly released so it might be interesting just because of that.
Last I heard (the playtest) Daggerheart was somewhat unpolished and lacked mechanical teeth to make it more than a narrative prompting experience. Recent reviews seem positive though, I’ll have to take another look.
Anyone looking for a game like that is going to be overwhelmed by Daggerheart. It has plenty of crunch. But it does have an overall philosophy that “Everything you do at the table should flow from the fiction”.
My skim of the srd gave the impression of a crunchy exterior with a gooey center (which definitely is good for some tables). Hell, the first page has a header for “rulings over rules”! That phrase was a common GM pejorative for 5e; used as justification to offload balance from the system to the players. The core systems seem strong but with lots of asterisks to keep them backseat to player agency.
Loose turn structure, PC death only with player consent, GMs generally don’t get to make a move unless it’s explicitly available, spending meta-currencies to legally fudge dice rolls, etc… It seems like most of it was designed for players to have a strong control over narrative with lots of pressure valves to reduce the impact of unlucky dice. I like the Hope/Stress system, but Fear seems like it only exists to give the GM permission to do normal GM things.
At any rate I’ll be interested to see it in practice. It seems like the system Critical Role always needed, they’ll probably be able to do some cooler narratives without sanding down 5e’s rough edges.
I think it’s more that the mechanics take a backseat to the fiction, and largely the GM is more responsible for that than the players. It’s definitely not for everyone. I run a regular 5e game and I suspect half of my players would be into it and half would very clearly say “no thanks”.
That’s an interesting interpretation, considering that success with fear is just as likely as failure with hope. I don’t see this as primarily existing to make things easier for the players. Rather it’s there to make each roll more interesting.
The communication around Fear could be better in the book. GMs can do normal GM things whenever they want. Fear is used to up the stakes by using special adversary moves, taking more “turns” than they can naturally, or interrupting the players in ways that would likely seem unfair in 5e.