Search Results
8/1/2025, 8:25:22 AM
>>96224477
>Can you go more into your thoughts of Daggerheart?
My largest points of disappointment with Daggerheart are:
• 1. The GM's action economy in combat is based almost purely on how much the PCs flub rolls.
• 2. Hope and Fear create success spirals or failure spirals. Success leads to future success, and failure leads to future failure.
• 3. The game has once per short rest (in-game), once per long rest (in-game), and once per session (out-of-game) mechanics all mixed together, leading to awkward resource management.
• 4. Adversary math is inconsistent.
• 5. Druids are simply too strong, for a number of reasons.
• 6. Bards are just number-tweakers rather than action-enablers.
• 7. Too much of the game ultimately relies on GM fiat, in a way I find grating even for a PbtA game.
I have a document that goes into more detail about these points, but it is not quite ready yet.
>I bother learning and GMing it
I would say to give it a try regardless. For all you know, you might like it.
>Can you go more into your thoughts of Daggerheart?
My largest points of disappointment with Daggerheart are:
• 1. The GM's action economy in combat is based almost purely on how much the PCs flub rolls.
• 2. Hope and Fear create success spirals or failure spirals. Success leads to future success, and failure leads to future failure.
• 3. The game has once per short rest (in-game), once per long rest (in-game), and once per session (out-of-game) mechanics all mixed together, leading to awkward resource management.
• 4. Adversary math is inconsistent.
• 5. Druids are simply too strong, for a number of reasons.
• 6. Bards are just number-tweakers rather than action-enablers.
• 7. Too much of the game ultimately relies on GM fiat, in a way I find grating even for a PbtA game.
I have a document that goes into more detail about these points, but it is not quite ready yet.
>I bother learning and GMing it
I would say to give it a try regardless. For all you know, you might like it.
Page 1