A couple of weeks ago, Critical Role's imprint Darrington Press released the beta playtest packet for their new fantasy ttrpg Daggerheart. I have run it for a group, some of whom had no ttrpg experience, and it went incredibly well. We are going to keep playing, and some new people are going to be recruited into the group. So, you might say I am incredibly excited about this game. It is still very much in beta, and there are some rough edges to smooth out, but the tabletop experience it produces is excellent.
On Page 11 of the current (v. 1.3, released yesterday as of this writing) of the Playtest Manuscript, there is an extensive list of games that inspired Daggerheart. Notably absent from the list is Modiphius's 2d20 system. In part because I am familiar with the 2d20 games in a way I am not with other listed touchstones, I was surprised by this exclusion, as Daggerheart feels very similar to the 2d20 games. After running it, and particularly after digesting the 1.3 version, I think this is less an example of inspiration and more one of parallel evolution. Daggerheart and 2d20 games arrive at a similar place, especially from the point of view of the GM experience, but they do so via different starting premises. In this post, I want to break down these differing lines of development, and then talk about why I am coming around to the view that these styles of ttrpg are my personal sweet spot, as a player but especially as a GM.
Both Daggerheart and 2d20 games have at their heart a game mechanical "economy" that utilizes what are usually called "meta-currencies." Players (not the characters, the players) and the GM have resources that they can spend to change the way the story proceeds. As the excellent deep-dive video that Derik from Knights of the Last Call astutely points out (beginning at 51:00), this is related to but conceptually distinct from so-called "fiction first" games and game mechanics, which try to avoid interjecting mechanics into the narrative space. Here, these currencies are tools to allow players and GMs to intervene in the story flow and introduce new elements or change the dynamic. But, they are "economic" in the sense that they are a limited resource, and the game is predicated on players and GMs making decisions about how they will spend them--do I intervene here in this way, or do I save it for some future opportunity? This is an aside from this post, but there is a line of criticism from advocates of fiction first games (especially the Powered by the Apocalypse/Forged in the Dark line) that these sorts of mechanics impose unnecessary and counterproductive limitations on the players and the GM "following the fiction." For my own tastes, I am firmly in the camp of these limitations are features not bugs, for reasons I somewhat explored here and here, and will say more about at the end of this post.
In any event, let's talk about 2d20 [as a brief aside, Modiphius's new 2d20 game Dreams and Machines adds another economic "loop" to the basic 2d20 system, but here we will skip that and focus on the other games in the family]. The fundamental economic unit of the 2d20 system is the success. Every time a players has to make a "check," they get 2 twenty-sided dice to roll, and those dice can each generate between 0 and 2 successes, depending on the rolls and the related character abilities. Likewise, when NPCs make a check, they usually get 2d20 to roll and generate successes. As the name implies, successes are used to succeed on whatever task generated the check--difficulties are rated on a scale of 0 to 5 total successes needed, with most checks requiring either 1 or 2. But the reason successes are economic is that any additional successes generated beyond the ones needed to pass the check are converted into a currency, called "Momentum" when the players generate the successes and in most 2d20 games "Threat" when the GM rolls.
Momentum/Threat can be used in basically three categories of ways. First, they can be spent immediately to add riders or status effects onto the outcome of the check itself. So, for example, an attack that rolls well and generates Momentum/Threat can have that new resource be spent to cause additional damage or perform a combat maneuver like disarming the foe or knocking them down, or even take another action. Or, they can be banked for future use. The most common future use case is to buy additional dice to roll on a subsequent check. Not only does this increase the chance of success on that roll, but it makes it more likely that there will be additional Momentum/Threat generated from the roll, creating a feedback loop. But there are also other, more narrative spends for Momentum/Threat, especially on the GM side and especially with the more abstract and narrative focused versions of 2d20 (like Star Trek Adventures and Dune).
The wrinkle here is that Momentum and Threat are convertible with each other. A player can spend 1 Momentum to buy 1 additional dice to roll on a check, or she can give the GM 1 Threat to obtain the same bonus d20. Another wrinkle is that checks can generate complications, which can either be immediately imposed on the scene, or converted into Threat (+2 Threat if it is a complication generated by the players, -2 Threat for an NPC complication). Likewise, a spend of 2 Threat at any time by the GM, and in most cases 2 Momentum by the players, introduces a complication into a scene for the other side. And, thus, Momentum and Threat function as commodities with clear pricing and the ability to be traded back and forth between the players and the GM and spent in various ways. It's worth noting that each player has a Momentum pool cap of 6 and a mechanic where Momentum bleeds away over time, while the GM's Threat pool is uncapped and remains until spent.
Finally, 2d20 games generally use a fairly traditional action economy and turn structure. In a combat sequence, for most games the turn order is PC/NPC/PC/NPC, and in a turn you have a standard action (which involves a check) and a suite of minor and free actions. Other than the lack of cyclic initiative, it is basically the same concept as d20 games like D&D.
Now let's look at Daggerheart. Like 2d20 games, the players and the GM have respective meta-currencies, Hope and Fear. And these meta-currencies are generated primarily from checks. But, unlike 2d20, the generation of Hope and Fear is separate and apart from succeeding or failing the check. Success and failure involves adding up the 2d12 plus modifiers to beat a target number, just like d20 games. However, depending on which of the d12s is higher, the roll will also be "with Hope" or "with Fear," and this outcome is independent of the success/failure dichotomy. So, you can Succeed with Fear and Fail with Hope, as well as Succeeding with Hope and Failing with Fear (you can also critically succeed, which has distinct effects but from an "economic" perspective is a Success with Hope). If PCs roll "with Hope," then they get a Hope point. If they roll with Fear, then (as of the v. 1.3 revision) the GM either "makes a move" (which is broader than but functionally similar to 2d20's imposing a complication) or takes a Fear point. Critically, this mechanic only applies to player rolls--when the GM rolls for NPCs, he or she uses a completely different die mechanic that does not generate either Hope or Fear. So, as compared to 2d20 games, the total volume of Hope and Fear being generated is significantly less. On the flip side, Hope doesn't degrade on the player side, and the GM is capped at 6 Fear (reduced down from 10 in the v. 1.3 revision).
A critical difference in Daggerheart is that Hope is not directly convertible into Fear in the way Momentum and Threat are in 2d20, at least not in the current draft. I have seen complaints online that players are Hope starved at times, and one of the obvious solutions coming from a 2d20 background is to let players buy Hope in return for Fear. I'm probably going to experiment with this at some point, but given the relatively small Fear pool for the GM I am not sure this will work. Another very important difference is that v 1.3 removed any Fear spends that allow the GM to boost NPC dice rolls. At first, this was a bit of a head-scratcher for me, but I think the idea is to cut any links between success/failure and the Fear point mechanic. Now, they are wholly separate, and instead Fear points are now used to activate NPC and/or environmental special abilities. This concept was there in the v. 1.2 draft, but has been strongly enhanced by a more robust explanation of environmental spends, including lots of environmental spends for out of combat situations. This parallels the game flow of 2d20 games, where Threat is used to activate terrain features and other environmental elements.
But the other primary use of Fear points relates to the action economy. Much to the consternation of many online commentators, Daggerheart has no initiative system (even the so-called "turn based initiative" optional rule in the v. 1.3 packet is not really an initiative system in the d20 model, but a way to regulate intra-party actions). Whenever a player wants their PC to do something, they do it. But, when they do something that counts as an "Action" (which usually, but now not always, involves a dice roll), they hand the GM an Action Token for the Action tracker. When players fail a check, "initiative" passed back to the GM, who then spends Action Tokens to activate NPCs to take actions. Critically, Action Tokens can be converted into Fear Tokens and visa versa at a 2 Action Token to 1 Fear Token exchange rate. In other words, every time a player takes an Action, they hand the GM the equivalent of half of a Fear Token as the "cost" for taking that Action. In addition, the GM can spend 1 Fear to seize the initiative from the players after any check (down from 2 Fear in v. 1.2). So, on a roll with Fear, even if successful, the GM always has the option of seizing the initiative from the players by taking a Fear point and then immediately spending it.
As a result, while the fundamental economic unit of 2d20 games is the success, the fundamental economic unit of Daggerheart is the action. Every action the PCs take generates a counter resource for the GM. Rolling a Fear result gives the GM a Fear token, which converts to an additional two actions down the line. One of the definite changes in emphasis in the v. 1.3 draft is that the designers are making clear that "Action Token" does not mean exclusively "Combat Action Token," as the implication is that this Action Token structure can and should be used for set-piece non-combat scenarios like big negotiations or social gatherings. In such a situation, PCs will take non-combat actions that generate Action Tokens, allowing the GM to then spend them on counter-actions (especially as the v. 1.3 draft now makes the "Stress" tracker feel much more like "mental HP" than "stun damage").
I predict the PbtA, fiction-first crowd is going to hate the v. 1.3 draft, as it moves Daggerheart in a more "gamified" direction. I, however, love this direction, because I think these sorts of narrativist game mechanics are much more enjoyable from the GM side of the screen. The problem with fiction-first games IME is that the GM is almost forced to take on the "story concierge" stance that I mentioned in the previous post. Fiction-first games are designed around the players leading the narrative and the GM "yes, and-ing" in response. It's a very passive set-up, at least during play (and even out of play, as those games tend to push the idea of the players as co-creators of the world, for sound reasons but nevertheless resulting in even further reduction in opportunities for GM creativity and freedom of action).
But, more to the point, there is no game there for the GM in the fiction-first games. And games are fun. 2d20 games and Daggerheart, while there are differences in their implementation discussed above, both give the GM a set of fun toys to play with. I as the GM can look at my pile of Threat/Fear tokens and figure out how to most effectively use them on behalf of the NPCs, knowing that because they are a limited resource I have a much reduced danger of unfairly steamrolling the PCs in an un-fun way. I as the GM can play a fair and fun game, matching wits with my players without being antagonistic toward them. I know people love the PbtA games, and you should play what you want, but I think the more mechanically-forward games like 2d20 and Daggerheart are just more fun from the GM side. I like being the "Master of Ceremonies" (as Apocalypse World calls its GMs), but I like actually playing a game, too.
As far as between the two, I like that Daggerheart appears to me moving toward at once a more focused and also more widely-applicable set of options for the players and GM with its currencies and mechanics. 2d20 games tend toward menus of options for Momentum/Threat spends, which can result in choice paralysis. Daggerheart is directing Hope/Fear spends toward a more discrete set of options, which while limiting options makes it easier to pick up. On the same line, while much of the GM flexibility for manipulating scenes seems to be cabined in the environmental Fear spends, improv-oriented GMs can just improv the environmental effects, while more prep-oriented GMs have the structure as a back-stop. That's a nice compromise between styles.
My one question is whether it makes sense for Daggerheart to simply collapse the Action Tokens and Fear Tokens into a single pool. I think the conversion rate of 2 NPC actions to 1 special ability use feels right, so if you collapsed the two pools you would need to award 2 Action Tokens for a roll "with Fear." That's a bit awkward, and breaks the symmetry between the with Hope and with Fear result, which is why I think the designers have not made this move. But having a single pool would make the economy behind the game fully transparent.
In any event, while I understand why this game is not going to be to everyone's taste, I think Daggerheart is shaping up to be excellent. And, perhaps more to the point, precisely in my personal wheelhouse, such that I think it has a strong chance to become my go-to fantasy ttrpg.
No comments:
Post a Comment