Haven't finished watching yet but something consistent in every release so far: the absolutely beautiful artwork. The backdrop with a halfling with a prosthetic arm encapsulates the intended fantasy and world-building so effectively. And it's just gorgeous art.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

Oh absolutely. The artwork is amazing, I wish they had a full gallery of everything, it looks incredible!

@nicolaspereyra420

Ай бұрын

They should make an illustration for every card, that way it feels more like a deckbuilding game

The sort of dissonance between free-form goals and fiddly mechanics that Daggerheart is having reminds me of an interesting video by Questing Beast ("You shouldn't use DnD for narrative campaigns.") He talks about how what a game system has rules for can sometimes be the inverse of what the game is actually about - having mechanics for something is necessarily an abstraction of it, and so what you don't have mechanics for and thus don't abstract can be the meat of the game. He also mentions a quote from Brennan Lee Mulligan on D&D being "combat-oriented" because it has so many combat rules: "[Calling D&D a combat-oriented game] would sort of be like looking at a stove and being like, This has nothing to do with food. You can’t eat metal. Clearly this contraption is for moving gas around and having a clock on it. If it was about food, there would be some food here. [...] What you should get is a machine that is either made of food, or has food in it. [...] I’m going to bring the food. The food is my favorite part. [People say that] because D&D has so many combat mechanics, you are destined to tell combat stories. I fundamentally disagree. Combat is the part I’m the least interested in simulating through improvisational storytelling. So I need a game to do that for me, while I take care of emotions, relationships, character progression, because that shit is intuitive and I understand it well. I don’t intuitively understand how an arrow moves through a fictional airspace." I think this might be the paradox the DH designers are running up against. They want to have rules for free-form combat and storytelling, but in giving those things rules they abstract it and make it less free-form. They want to give people guidance on how to dynamically adjust combat and make interesting environments, but end up limiting the "design space" of GMs to do this themselves. Not sure how they'll solve this. (Granted, I've only played 5e and PF2e, so my experience with rules-light/rules-bendy systems is nonexistent lol.)

@aralornwolf3140

Ай бұрын

Well... if you want a rules light system... I know of two that are intended to be played by kids. One is based off the Warrior novels, so you play as a cat set in that world. The other is fantasy, you play as a _magical kitty_ who is there to save the day. Of course, you could play as something other than a kitty, but kitties are the base design. Then there is the Cortex System and Cortex 2 System, and their variants. I think Firefly RPG is probably the best Rules Lite system (for adults), as the rules are only about 50 pages, which includes character creation, advancement, ship creation, and improvement, etc. The combat rules are the exact same as any other skill check, with modifications for common occurrences. Even ship vs ship rules are no different than skill checks (although they have a couple of extra steps, as ship vs ship combat is more complex than just a human trying to hack a hospital's mainframe). *Shrugs* The issue with Daggerheart is they want a rules lite narrative focused system while also having tactical combat. The two design goals are at odds with each other. It doesn't seem like they have realized this contradiction.

@SerifSansSerif

Ай бұрын

@@aralornwolf3140 They don't want a game. They want situations to allow for improv acting and a mechanic that dictates whether you should act as though things turn out positively or negatively. They're trying to come up with "mechanics" so that it's more gamified, but they're not gamers and gamblers, they're actors. The mechanics themselves are just such a mess of random mishmash.

I don't think the core book will be split into multiple on release. I've played and owned a LOT of different games, and almost none of them go the d&d route of splitting the core rules. Considering it's the business model of the largest game in this space it's also pretty uncommon.

@aralornwolf3140

Ай бұрын

Well... it depends entirely on the size of the rules. Pathfinder uses the D&D method because of how _thick_ the rule book would be if the Gamemastery Guide, Bestiary, and the Core Rulebook were combined. Something that is over 1,000 pages. No one would want to lug _that_ around. The cost of making that book would increase the final price, effectively pricing people out of the game. Most games I've seen, usually only have a 300-500 page rulebook which contained everything required to play. If they can go smaller, they go smaller.

@norandomnumbers

Ай бұрын

​@@aralornwolf3140Pathfinder has a really beefy "Running the Game" section in the Core Rule Book though, and the Game Mastery Guide is optional.

@aralornwolf3140

Ай бұрын

@@norandomnumbers, Certain sections of the Gamemastery Guide _aren't_ optional though. They are required if the GM wanted to modify existing monsters/traps/items, as well as creating new ones. For the Remaster, they are taking the Core Rulebook and splitting it up, so several sections will be in the Gamemastery Guide, which most certainly makes it no longer optional. On the other hand, _buying_ the rules for Paizo's games, at this time, _is_ optional due to their support of websites like Archives of Nethys.

I enjoy the way it does combat. In my play test, this initiative system has single-handedly solved One of the large problems I have had with dnd. People being on their phones or otherwise not Paying attention. Each person takes the position that they don't pay Attention to combat and then when it gets to their turn they ask for it to be explained to them. Then I have to explain what is going on multiple times per round and that adds time , and that makes it worse. But put the same group With this extreme problem into this new system problem is gone people pay attention. The fact that your resources come from your actions as well in all kind of works together to make it so that you are always incentalized to do something anything and all you have to do is speak up. But that's very difficult for people who don't speak up. It requires an environment where we are constantly discussing.Who could do what to solve this problem in front of us or constantly asking?If anyone has anything they're considering to do.Because when people don't speak up unprompted, they can easily do nothing.When they do nothing on game , they have less to do because of the way hope builds up. This particular initiative system would work much better in a game built around players starting with their maximum resources and slowly depleting them, Because being maximally effective in that game involves every player getting their turn. But in a system where players are in equilibrium with their resources Or slowly gain them There's an incentive to hog, and their opinion on the hogging Is that since the game is designed for people who don't care to optimize the game designers shouldn't care about incentivizing. Which suchs. Cause incentivizing is crucial to game design

I like the idea of environments. In my campaigns, I think I suffer from too little environmental effects over too many. I think these would help me. It's almost like Lair Effects, but in places that don't necessarily have boss monsters or even enemies in a combat sense.

@danwindham1

Ай бұрын

Maybe even a way to make travelling fun again? Have environmental effects, some random encounters, some campfire roleplay, and some montage. Or structure a setting around environments, like 9 levels of hell that have different effects for each level that the party figures out.

I like your consideration of the narrative flow of the game. Your analysis and critiques feel very purposeful

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

I appreciate that, thank you so much! It is really important to me to not just spew negativity but to actually contextualize what I’m saying and to provide meaningful feedback to help make the game the best it can be.

@pippastrelle

Ай бұрын

@@InsightCheck That's something I absolutely respect :D

I like the environment idea, but it needs to have 1-2 options for each typical environment and then leave it alone. Nobody wants to scroll through pages and pages of environment cards. I do like your idea of just a table of possible environment effects though. For initiative, I think this change to three action tokens per person is a decent balance between the free flowing play they are looking for and the worries people have about spotlight hogs or shy players. A lot of discussion I've heard is that people are worried about that aspect, so I think this addresses it. I don't think it's a big problem for players trying to decide when to act next, at least not once you have an ongoing campaign with them. I'm nervous about the GM taking fear OR acting, not both thing though. Gotta play this one out to get a feel Overall, nice summary of the changes!

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

Yeah exactly, the environments are an amazing idea but they just feel a bit too cumbersome and heavy in their current implementation. As for initiative, it certainly addresses one issue so it will be cool to see how it plays out. On GM and Fear... yeah, not too sure here...

I feel that the help action giving advantage at the cost of 1 hope undermines the tagteam roll

@The9volt1

Ай бұрын

The point of the tag team roll is to be able to add both players' damage rolls together to hit a higher damage threshold. Well, that's the mechanical point. The real point is to do epic shit, like when the comics used to show Colossus throwing Wolverine at people.

@Natt_Skapa

Ай бұрын

@@The9volt1 tag team rolls can be used for more than just combat but I see your point

I love all this conversation around the game! Keep up with the great job, IC!

The length is an issue. This is an "underwater cigarette lighter design" where it is kind of working against itself at its core. Editing usually cuts a manuscript 25% at most, and the examples are not fat to cut because most of the target audience is meant to learn from this book. The examples also have to contradict because the nature of it is to have high, relative, levels of abstraction. What I think is fair might not be fair for you or make sense for your situation. Just saw the branch you stand on and do not fall. As far as environments, yes, those will be a stat block to refrence so they can sell a book of them. They could have set up three stat blocks and a list of powers and moves to let you make your own monster to fit the situation, but opted out of that. This is meant to sell "Trickfoot's Treates on Tricky Terrain" as a splat book. Do not worry, they will make cards.

First time watching the channel and i have to say i liked your approach: concise, comparing both versions with examples and explaining your thoughts even suggesting some changes. I didnt like the change to stress. it made sense to me that one could gain stress during a fight representing damage that isnt enough to make you bleed (?) nor did i like the changes to fear. but i'll try this version soon so hopefully i can have a better reference. great video overall!

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

Thanks I really appreciate that! It’s always my goal to never just spew negativity but to provide thoughtful feedback whether good or bad. I want this product to succeed and be the best version of itself so I want to do what I can to help that! I think from an “I like this mechanic” perspective I also preferred Stress being combined with HP. But from an ease of use and functionality standpoint, I’m glad it’s gone. Stress is a really cool mechanic overall that they are exploring more which is nice to see.

They have a ton of ideas. A ton of great Ideas. But I feel it's too much. Trim the Fat. Cut a fourth of the material and simplify it. Matt Mercer is not on the same level as most Dms. Styles are different and much is left to openness. Also no rules makes the game chaotic. Rules set boundaries, and boundaries allows growth. Artwork is fantastic. And a lot of love has been put into this behemoth.

Monsters should come with built in fear. Maybe lower level monsters need to be in a certain size group to enter combat with one fear. Boss monsters could have an ability like if you give up a move to gain a fear, you gain two fear.

Seems like the Environment statblocks should just be a list of options to use Fear on, that would kinda solve two problems at once 🤷‍♂️

Great video, and I appreciate the analysis, since I haven't been able to play test the new stuff at all. There's a couple points where I disagree with you, one of the issues I ran into when I ran the play test was when my players failed or succeeded with fear, I got my fear token then had to decide wether or not to make a move, and it honestly felt bad. They either already failed, AND got a consequence, AND gave me a fear. Or they succeeded BUT I got a fear AND they took a stress or w/e. Making a move costing the fear was actually the solution I planned to implement, because that way, if they fail with fear, I can spend that fear and deliver a consequence without feeling overly harsh. The other And I would recommend is checking out indestructaboy's review. Taron had some good things to say about how their book hasn't had a proper editor, and they'll help clean things up a lot. His analysis was really solid

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

Yeah it’s a fair point. I think I was more considering the value of Fear as a resource when it loses a lot of value. It yeah, I mentioned at the beginning that it hasn’t been through an editor and I am aware that it will have an impact on it once they finally do. I’ll check out their review though!

I think your "identity crisis" comment is apt and I look forward to your deeper dive on that subject! I'm sure I'm not the first person to say this but I feel like DH is trying to bridge the gap between the reliable crunch and straightforward gameplay of D&D with the more narrative-driven, free-form style of PbtA games. Unfortunately it is at real risk of achieving the worst of both worlds: being too crunchy for PbtA players and too spongy for D&D players! After all, the two styles seem fundamentally at odds: D&D focuses on resolving actions whereas PbtA focuses on resolving the scene and determining how the scene changes. Using a system designed to do the latter to do the former is asking for trouble, no wonder they added the "just take a Fear token if you can't think of anything" clause!

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

I think we are pretty much in alignment here. It feels like in trying to “bridge the gap” they’re doing a disservice to both types of players which is a bit unfortunate but seems to be what is happening right now. I am really curious to see how the feedback helps shape the progress of the game moving forward though.

@petsdinner

Ай бұрын

@@InsightCheck I agree. I do wonder if they will fall into the trap of making the game progressively more nailed down until they've basically just made D&D With Extra Steps. Either way, watching the game design process happen in real time is super interesting!

I completely agree with your concerns about how... fiddly DH is becoming. Any plans to look into MCDM, DC20 or Valiant? While I'm interested in 5e alternatives, Daggerheart is shaping up to be last place for me personally from what I've seen so far 🙂 (if not, that's totally fine too.)

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

Actually yes! I was going to post a quick channel update as a community post today to let people know my plans to attempt 2 videos per week. Friday will remain D&D while a second video, either Sunday or Monday will focus on alternate TTRPGs. I've obviously started with DH but I also want to get into DC20 and MCDM in the coming weeks!

Can't understand how this a channel with less than 10k subs... We gotta fix this!

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

I really appreciate the sentiment, thank you! Hopefully it’ll keep on climbing! :)

I love all of Insight Checks videos!

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

Thank you! I really appreciate that :)

I don't think the examples of what's to do when a character succeeds with fear contradictory. When you're sneaking, the goal is to not be seen, so ruling that you get seen would not be a success. When unlocking a door is your goal, being seen does not nullify unlocking the door.

The example you gave of two successes with fear "being inconsistent" actually makes perfect sense. The first eample shows the party trying to pick a lock. They succeed at the task they were attempting and then the additional wrinkle is that they are spotted. In the second example that was given the party is trying to sneak. So they keep stealth in only one spot and then the DM undermines that success by having them spotted in the next room. This is fully consistent logic, and makes full sense to someone who understands running a game. You shouldn't undermine your players actions.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

As I said in the video “I get that there’s different context in both scenarios…”. The point I was referring to is simple clarity within the text. Picking two examples where both the good and the bad version are the same thing is unclear. Yes, when you stop and think about it, sure, it makes sense, like I said. But it doesn’t help from a legibility perspective which is what that portion of the video was about. Also, yes, absolutely never undermine success. That’s a given.

I'm not sure what type of game Daggerheart is trying to be or that being less crunchy would be a good thing for them necessarily.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

This is the "identity crisis" that I am seeing in the text and through the revision. There's conflict all over the place. The team is suggesting they are trying to be in the middle but they only seem to be in the "middle" by being super rules light in some places and super heavy in others so it kinda "averages" out lol. The description they provide at the beginning doesn't really seem like it matches up with the actual system they've created. Obviously it's still in early development which is why I think this type of feedback is really important. A mechanical system or idea can be amazing on its own, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the right fit for any game.

Dropped to 316 pages? Svelte

My main concern about the free-flow intiative system of 1.2 was not "one-player hogging the spotlight" so much as traditionally underserved groups like women and shy-er folks just not getting their time. All the playtests I've seen have been either professionals, or like five guys. There is a problem in TTRPGs with DMs just under-hearing certain people and this initiative system seems like a nightmare for those folx. I think the token system goes a little ways towards addressing that weakness.

At 16:33: They succeeded in Unlocking a door and were spotted doing so. They were not sneaking; they were unlocking a door. The success was not undermined as the door was unlocked. In the second example they were sneaking and succeeded so having them be spotted would undermine the success. There is no logical inconsistency in the text as the complication that arises from fear is relative to what the PCs were attempting to accomplish. I think that a lot of the criticisms I've seen are based on folks not quite getting what the text is saying, which is absolutely on the creators of the text. There; I've contradicted you and supported your point at the same time. ;)

@Natt_Skapa

Ай бұрын

My thoughts exactly

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

lol thanks :P Yeah I phrased my point poorly and I already mentioned it to someone else in the comments as well and it’s really your second point here. I even mentioned that there is context to each scenario, I get it, I know they work and resolve differently. The issue was more that they choose to identical resolutions where one is good and one is bad. It’s just poor clarity. As was my explanation of it.

Currently daggerheart is ten unfinished concepts mashed together. What it really needs is someone wielding the fat cutter.

Regarding the clarity of the text, I’ve had the same issue with almost every D&D material that Critical Role has made. The gunslinger class and almost the entire Explorer’s Guide to Wildemount has a very different way of being written compared to any other 5e content, that it feels like the design team doesn’t put the effort into simplifying OR matching their terminology to existing content. Obviously this is its own separate rpg, so they don’t HAVE to match any other rpg, but I think their clarity problem has always been there.

@aralornwolf3140

Ай бұрын

Maybe they couldn't match the terminology/content because of the WOTC not putting the required stuff in the OGL?

Is Daggerheart supposed to be this crunchy?

You know what would solve pretty most issues with combat? A fixed turn order, whether by round or for the whole combat. A lot of the mechanics and changes all seem made just to try and patch out the leaks of not having initiative, whereas if they just had it, the game would be easier to both run and design.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

Yeah, I mean I've had this thought too. I see the appeal of the "no initiative" style system. It can lead to some moments that are really special and can only happen because of it which is really cool. The thing is it does definitely create some other potentially unintended side effects.

@theresemalachowski1923

Ай бұрын

Not having initiative really just feels so much more role play and less video game to me - this is by far my favorite feature of Daggerheart.

@aralornwolf3140

Ай бұрын

In another game, Firefly RPG, initiative is handled very intuitively. When a person completes their action(s), that person decides who goes next. The GM decides who goes first though. So, if it makes sense for the pack of wolves to surround the entire party, the GM can say "Wolf 1 goes first. Wolf 1 does [actions]. Wolf 1 decides Wolf 2 goes next, and so on; Until the last wolf has taken their action, then that last wolf decides which of the PCs (or NPCs the PCs are with) goes next. If the situation calls for the players to act first, it's fair for the GM to designate one of the PCs to go first and for that Player to select another PC... until they all the PCs take their turn. However, for Daggerheart to have this type of initiative order will require more revisions to the game. *Shakes Head* They are trying to create a narrative focused game with a _tactical combat_ simulation... the two design goals are going to be at odds.

The fear of "what if people arent creative and will require books and books of enviroment statblocks" does not seem likely to mee.

@SwedishSalmonbox

Ай бұрын

Somehow i feel like a lot of reviews have been like "Our group had a lot of fun. But everyone might not!" or "I like this idea, but some might use it in this unhelpful way!"

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

@SwedishSalmonbox I think there’s an important process at play here. When reviewing anything, the target audience is a crucial consideration to make. Probably the most important consideration in fact. I don’t care how amazing something is, if I’m not interested in it well then… the review doesn’t matter to me. So what I’m getting at is that contextualizing is a very important part of the process. Most people hearing about or who are interested in Daggerheart are hearing about it because they are fans of Critical Role. Critical Role is famous for on-boarding many many new players into D&D, many of which have never played another TTRPG of any kind before. As a result, understanding that the most likely audience for this game are fans of Critical Role who might not have played any other TTRPG is important from both the designer and the reviewer side. All that being said, I’m not sure what your first comment was referring to? There’s no “fear” of “what if people aren’t creative enough…”. The question was relating to the overall design direction that the game is moving in. Is that something that is fundamentally beneficial to what DH is trying to be or is it just “extra stuff” or is it “extra stuff that we absolutely want but maybe we add later on and not part of the core system.” These are all super relevant things that a design team needs to consider when working to deliver on a cohesive product that makes sense for their audience.

🥳❤️👍🏿

Having watched countless videos of Daggerheart and other new systems that have cropped up recently, I noticed one main issue that is rarely addressed: They are trying so hard to not be DnD that they make very odd rules choices that may or may not be good, just to not clone already standard DnD rules.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

Interestingly, I'm actually working on a video right now about the "identity crisis" I mentioned at the end that does actually touch on this!

@gamelairtim

Ай бұрын

[citation needed]

I cannot even convey how much this is not a rules light game.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

lol you’re definitely not wrong. They want it to be, they keep saying it is, but every update gets crunchier.

@mtknight5141

Ай бұрын

I feel like there is a desire to be more free - but the design team is still holding tight to 5e and using it as a skeleton. Like they took 5e chapter by chapter and said “how do we want to do this step?” Instead of “do we need this step?”

@blingkong1045

Ай бұрын

@@mtknight5141 I cannot think of a worse way to create a game. Using 5E as a skeleton to create a game that nothing like 5E. They are being held back by constraints that contradict their design ethos. And its all for basically zero benefit, if someone wants to play play something like 5E I don't see them playing Daggerheart

Nothing I hear about Daggerheart makes it sound like the RP focused system it seems to be gunning for.

@InsightCheck

Ай бұрын

There’s elements to it but this is part of the “identity crisis” I alluded to at the end of the video. I’ll be doing a deeper dive on it soon but it feels like they are pulling at two extremes right now.

@aralornwolf3140

Ай бұрын

It's an RP focused game with a _tactical combat_ system. Yes, it's contradictory. Tactical Combat is counter to the RP focused Rules Lite system they are thinking they are making.

I feel like the hope and fear system makes me not ever want to be a DM with this system. Having to come up with so many outcomes on the spot for every single role is too much.

All rules combined need to be able to be written on a post-it, or it's not a true rules light.

I still question how one would reconcile the existence of high fidelity prosthesis and wheelchairs in a fantasy world. Are there also cars? Guns? Phones? What makes this world interesting? I still dont like the initiative system, as it still relies on complete cooperation from each player.

The more they bog all the social parts of the game down with rules the less immersive the game gets. Do they not get that? These rules should be far more general than literal trigger conditions and stat blocks

The whole hope and fear thing is bullshit. I don't say that to be cruel, but the DM can ALWAYS choose to make things worse or better, because they're the ones setting up the world. At best, ditch the fear, and just have hope work like inspiration. For as much as they're trying to NOT have a fiddly yet meaningless system, this mechanic at the heart of it flies in the face of what a DM actually is, which isn't an oppositional player, but the person who is creating the game whole cloth. The host. The one for whom ALLLLL rules bow to. You just don't reward the GM Inspiration.