I run a table. One of the people at the table insisted that I checked out Daggerheart. So I did. And I was very pleasantly surprised.
Why? Well, I admit I had some prejudices against it. First, I sort of made up my mind when I saw the whole licensing issue, Daggerheart basically doing what Wizards of the Coast did with Dungeons and Dragons. But not only that, I also saw red flags in Daggerheart itself: minis.
I saw a video for Daggerheart where the thumbnail showed minis. I was out. I find minis so frustrating. They are in my list of things that I cannot care about. I care about dramatic stories, not combat simulation. I care about intrigue and character growth, not arithmetic. I saw that and assumed that Daggerheart was a combat simulator just like Dungeons and Dragons is. I didn’t even pay attention.
But then my friend insisted that I read about Daggerheart. And so I did.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that minis are optional. Even more importantly, I was shocked to find a game that effectively is Powered by the Apocalypse. I was especially relieved to not find rules for movement that require trigonometry or strange approximations (unlike Dungeons and Dragons, where there are grids and numbers everywhere).
I found a game that prioritized drama. Yes, it still simulates combat, but it does so in such a simple way that makes me happy to run it.
I’m excited! This would be the first game that I ever play when the game is just released. This would be the first game in which I don’t even have to pitch to the table; the table already wants to play it.
Of course, these are my first impressions. Maybe they’ll change. For now, I’m happy.
Huh. Thanks for sharing. I’m totally up for critically evaluating Critical Role and Daggerheart.
I do agree that Critical Role’s play style was a bit like a square peg in a round hole. Other games could’ve been more appropriate for them. Arguably a more appropriate game for them is Daggerheart.
As to not letting your personal feelings about Critical Role cloud my judgement, thanks for caring about not biasing me. At the same time, I’m sure you have good reasons to be critical of Daggerheart. Understanding why we say what we say sounds like a good plan, and I’m curious to hear what you think:
What is it about Daggerheart that makes you think it’s nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand?
Games are games, I try not to yuck anyone’s yum.
I think that if you look at campaign 2 and 3 of Critical Role — there is a very clear decline in quality. This decline in quality has retroactively permeated things like Legend of Vox Machina (Pike, the cleric, suddenly deciding ‘Gods r bad’. Very clearly mimicking the poor narrative decisions Matt has made.).
Now, I don’t know if Daggerheart is bad — really it just sounds like it’s a platform for improv performance, which I don’t dislike! I also think you’re right on the money about the square peg in the round hole. I think what I need to see from Daggerheart is that it’s worth the amount of effort they put into it, considering how they’ve treated their DnD campaigns.
TL;DR — it’s hard for me to separate the lack of quality in CR’s recent campaigns from Daggerheart. I gave up on CR a long time ago, Daggerheart needs to prove itself to me, and can’t be through CR.