I watched Red Room's vid about it very funny and worth a watch.

They pointed out that all the artwork has no middle aged white men. It all POC elves 'n shit with goofy died hair.

How sad is that?? Virtue that signal, ye' beyatch!

Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 04:15:38 AM
I've seen a lot of people shitting on individual Initiative, but the problem with group initiative is something Alexander Macris spoke of, that it heavily favors larger groups. And, on my own take on the matter, is that it also becomes a game of rocket tag, since the side that wins initiative can all act before the other side, which favors alpha striking strategies.

And if we are doing the PbtA "pop-corn initiative" but everyone can still only act once per turn, then that's basically the same only that it becomes again a game of the loudest crowd getting to act first. If people want to frame this as "ruling over rules" sure, but I would reply with that works for literally everything on every system. The GM can always just apply fiat liberally and decide how to run a game.

One thing 5 Parsecs From Home did that I really liked for a solo TT skirmish game, is that each character tests to see if they act in the "slow phase" or the "quick phase". The idea is, when an individual character acts is not as important as the question of whether they act before the opponents or after them. So everybody in the quick phase acts before the opponents, and everyone in the slow phase acts after the opponents. This makes a turn go very smoothly, especially for a solo game where the player has to control all the baddies.

I expected this garbage. Thanks for the video!

I thought I heard somewhere were there are no target rolls.  You hit and you determine how well you hit from there.  When I heard that it screamed Storygame.

If what I heard was true.

Quote from: GhostNinja on March 17, 2024, 04:39:19 PM
I thought I heard somewhere were there are no target rolls.  You hit and you determine how well you hit from there.  When I heard that it screamed Storygame.

If what I heard was true.

What you describe is Matthew Colville's 4E reskin, now with 40% more leftardism edition.  You always hit in that game.

In Daggerheart they drop in a bunch of additional terms to make hitting a player do little to nothing in damage, sure less math recording more more math figuring if you hit.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on March 17, 2024, 05:09:01 PM
What you describe is Matthew Colville's 4E reskin, now with 40% more leftardism edition.  You always hit in that game.

In Daggerheart they drop in a bunch of additional terms to make hitting a player do little to nothing in damage, sure less math recording more more math figuring if you hit.

Either way, both sound god awful and something I want to avoid.  Thanks for the correction.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 17, 2024, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 04:15:38 AM
I've seen a lot of people shitting on individual Initiative, but the problem with group initiative is something Alexander Macris spoke of, that it heavily favors larger groups. And, on my own take on the matter, is that it also becomes a game of rocket tag, since the side that wins initiative can all act before the other side, which favors alpha striking strategies.

And if we are doing the PbtA "pop-corn initiative" but everyone can still only act once per turn, then that's basically the same only that it becomes again a game of the loudest crowd getting to act first. If people want to frame this as "ruling over rules" sure, but I would reply with that works for literally everything on every system. The GM can always just apply fiat liberally and decide how to run a game.

One thing 5 Parsecs From Home did that I really liked for a solo TT skirmish game, is that each character tests to see if they act in the "slow phase" or the "quick phase". The idea is, when an individual character acts is not as important as the question of whether they act before the opponents or after them. So everybody in the quick phase acts before the opponents, and everyone in the slow phase acts after the opponents. This makes a turn go very smoothly, especially for a solo game where the player has to control all the baddies.

That sounds like a good way to go about it, but then again, from the characters that go in the "quick phase" who goes first? Is that determined in some way?

Quote from: GhostNinja on March 17, 2024, 04:39:19 PM
I thought I heard somewhere were there are no target rolls.  You hit and you determine how well you hit from there.  When I heard that it screamed Storygame.

If what I heard was true.

Here's what I see on page 106 of the playtest doc:

QuoteAttack Rolls

When you make an action roll with the intent to do harm to an enemy, you're making an attack roll. Reference the weapon or spell you're using for the attack to determine what trait it uses. We'll talk more about spellcast rolls in the next section, but for a standard physical or magic weapon attack, use the character trait the weapon requires (see "Equipment"), as well as any Experience or other modifiers that are applicable, and resolve it as you would a normal action roll.

If you succeed, make a Damage Roll (see "Damage Rolls") to determine how much harm you do to the target.

Each character has an "Evasion" score that is the target number for an enemy attack roll. So it looks like what you heard is false. Again, this is a free doc that I trivially downloaded.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 17, 2024, 03:15:54 AM
Plagiarism would suggest cutting and pasting. I didn't say that. I'm saying that they have borrowed mechanical ideas from an alphabet soup of Storygaming trash concepts.

I'd agree that there are general storygame influences on this, but almost nothing looks like it's out of Powered by the Apocalypse. It refers to player "moves", but the term isn't used the same as in PbtA. The Fear mechanic seems similar to the Doom Pool of the Cortex Plus system (as in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying), and there's nothing like that in PbtA. It also has a lot of crunchy class+ability stuff, though, which is more like 4E in style. What you said around 7:26 of the video was:

QuoteIt has become very evident from what I've seen about it on Twitter that Daggerheart is basically going to be a kind of a ripoff of the Powered by the Apocalypse games. Apocalypse World which is a story game it's going to be a story game all right. In a way that's that in itself is a natural evolution. It's also really a cheap deal what they're doing here, because I don't think they've ever said that it's Powered by the Apocalypse. It isn't like it's something very similar. They've just borrowed a bunch of stuff from that particular branch of story gaming and not given any credit about that as far as I know. Maybe I'm wrong. Please tell me if Matt Mercer has in fact said that the game is deeply inspired by Apocalypse World or Dungeon World or something like that.

To be clear - I hated the Doom Pool of Cortex Prime. So I suspect I wouldn't like the Fear points of Daggerheart. But if I'm going to give my opinion of a system, I will give a look at the text of the system.

If someone can't even be bothered to look at the free Quickstart of a system to get basic facts of a system, but then spends 25 minutes going on explaining their opinions about that game -- that's willful ignorance.

Quote from: jhkim on March 17, 2024, 09:00:13 PMAgain, this is a free doc that I trivially downloaded.

Is there a direct link for the playtest doc? The only link I found had you submitting your email address to join the playtest.

Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 06:13:52 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 17, 2024, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 04:15:38 AM
I've seen a lot of people shitting on individual Initiative, but the problem with group initiative is something Alexander Macris spoke of, that it heavily favors larger groups. And, on my own take on the matter, is that it also becomes a game of rocket tag, since the side that wins initiative can all act before the other side, which favors alpha striking strategies.

And if we are doing the PbtA "pop-corn initiative" but everyone can still only act once per turn, then that's basically the same only that it becomes again a game of the loudest crowd getting to act first. If people want to frame this as "ruling over rules" sure, but I would reply with that works for literally everything on every system. The GM can always just apply fiat liberally and decide how to run a game.

One thing 5 Parsecs From Home did that I really liked for a solo TT skirmish game, is that each character tests to see if they act in the "slow phase" or the "quick phase". The idea is, when an individual character acts is not as important as the question of whether they act before the opponents or after them. So everybody in the quick phase acts before the opponents, and everyone in the slow phase acts after the opponents. This makes a turn go very smoothly, especially for a solo game where the player has to control all the baddies.

That sounds like a good way to go about it, but then again, from the characters that go in the "quick phase" who goes first? Is that determined in some way?

Player choice.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 17, 2024, 09:06:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 17, 2024, 09:00:13 PMAgain, this is a free doc that I trivially downloaded.

Is there a direct link for the playtest doc? The only link I found had you submitting your email address to join the playtest.

It seems like putting in any email address immediately results in downloading the zip file with the playtest materials. You don't have to put in your real personal email.

https://www.daggerheart.com/play

The stuff about players making moves and following the fiction is baffling.  People are assuming that this must be a PbtA game because that sort of language is ubiquitous in PbtA games and not really found anywhere else.  It's almost as if it's a leftover remnant of some earlier, PbtA version of the game from before they decided to use their own system instead.  It's the only explanation I can really come up with for why the game includes this distinctive, defining PbtA language when the system is not really like PbtA at all. 

Also, people on Youtube keep saying that it has advantage and disadvantage like D&D.  No, it doesn't.  It has advantage and disadvantage but they don't work like they do in D&D at all.  The 5e rule it's closest to is something like the bardic inspiration die.   

Quote from: jhkim on March 17, 2024, 10:04:47 PMIt seems like putting in any email address immediately results in downloading the zip file with the playtest materials. You don't have to put in your real personal email.

https://www.daggerheart.com/play

I didn't want to sign up because I didn't want a bunch of advertising spam. But, I guess I can just send all that spam to rpgpundit. 

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 18, 2024, 03:32:49 AM
The stuff about players making moves and following the fiction is baffling.  People are assuming that this must be a PbtA game because that sort of language is ubiquitous in PbtA games and not really found anywhere else.  It's almost as if it's a leftover remnant of some earlier, PbtA version of the game from before they decided to use their own system instead.  It's the only explanation I can really come up with for why the game includes this distinctive, defining PbtA language when the system is not really like PbtA at all.

I agree that the language was popularized by PbtA, but saying "it's your move" is very common to game play even beyond RPGs, and there is a long history of storytelling RPGs back to at least the Dallas RPG in 1980, and other 80s games like "Prince Valiant: The Storytelling Game", as well as the 90s and 00s including all the story games on The Forge prior to Apocalypse World.

So it's clearly PbtA influenced, but it's also not that much of a stretch. The Dallas RPG refers to the "script" and Prince Valiant to the "story" and "storyteller".

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 18, 2024, 03:32:49 AM
Also, people on Youtube keep saying that it has advantage and disadvantage like D&D.  No, it doesn't.  It has advantage and disadvantage but they don't work like they do in D&D at all.  The 5e rule it's closest to is something like the bardic inspiration die.

It is rolled differently, but it is similar in that advantage and disadvantage don't stack and they cancel each other out.

Does having a mechanic where you can modify either the environment or your action's results with an expendable resoure make a game "storygame trash" just by itself?  I'm referring to things like fate/hero/karma/whatever points that allow for things like rerolls or for you to change the encounters some small way directly like by introducing minor details or objects to use on the fly.  Does the answer depend on which subgenre the game belongs to in the traditional RPG space (specifically NOT explicitly "narrative" games) like for example doing it in a high fantasy/high magic game vs a grimdark low fantasy one?  Or does simply being able to spend a point to alter the skein of fate by changing a miss to potentially a hit or add an item to the environment make the game "narrative" in and of itself?  Does the answer depend on whether you're modifying (after the fact) a player's own action versus pre-emptively altering the environment?