It shouldn't surprise anyone but Matt Mercer & #criticalrole 's new Daggerheart RPG is ripping off awful storygamer ideas.
#dnd #osr #ttrpg

I haven't had time to check out the vid yet. But the headline doesn't t surprise me in the least.

Anything from that crowd would be a million miles away from the style and tone I'd want to play. So I look forward to never giving them and the crybaby Mercer a penny.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on March 16, 2024, 08:01:57 AM
I haven't had time to check out the vid yet. But the headline doesn't t surprise me in the least.

Anything from that crowd would be a million miles away from the style and tone I'd want to play. So I look forward to never giving them and the crybaby Mercer a penny.

Yes, that's the right approach.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2024, 09:44:42 AM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on March 16, 2024, 08:01:57 AM
I haven't had time to check out the vid yet. But the headline doesn't t surprise me in the least.

Anything from that crowd would be a million miles away from the style and tone I'd want to play. So I look forward to never giving them and the crybaby Mercer a penny.

Yes, that's the right approach.

I just watched the vid, mate. Absolutely nailed the points on story games Vs traditional RPGs. And what would likely happen to that a-symmetrical style of play where turns are 'fiction' based. LOL

Spare me from pretentious wanna be actors.

The only game pretentious performers ever come up with is a storygame.

From what little was discussed of this game itself, it seems to be an inversion of PbtA. I am unsurprised that these clowns managed to to screw up even a storygame. Who could have known that voice acting twats are not (story)game designers.

I could actually appreciate some of the "game" concepts involved if the implementation was good instead of complete garbage.

Quote from: Wisithir on March 16, 2024, 04:48:15 PM
The only game pretentious performers ever come up with is a storygame.

From what little was discussed of this game itself, it seems to be an inversion of PbtA. I am unsurprised that these clowns managed to to screw up even a storygame. Who could have known that voice acting twats are not (story)game designers.

I could actually appreciate some of the "game" concepts involved if the implementation was good instead of complete garbage.

Having now learned more about it, it strikes me that actually it's not just a rip off of pbta games. It's like Spenser Starke, the ghostwriter, just put up a bunch of Storygamer Trash on a wall and threw darts at it. Ironically, the game seems super incoherent, which means Forge people would despise it.

BTW: Spenser Starke looks exactly like you might imagine (if you visualize male feminist beta):

Learning who it's by and who it's for was enough for me determine that I want nothing to do with it. Anything further is just trying to quantify a dumpster fire. I can say that players making "moves" instead of "the fiction" triggering moves is extra stupid, analogous to asking to roll a check/test instead of declaring an action in an RPG. Hence inverting PbtA, which at least got that right. The mistakes only seem to get greater from there.

Quote from: Wisithir on March 16, 2024, 05:29:17 PM
Learning who it's by and who it's for was enough for me determine that I want nothing to do with it. Anything further is just trying to quantify a dumpster fire. I can say that players making "moves" instead of "the fiction" triggering moves is extra stupid, analogous to asking to roll a check/test instead of declaring an action in an RPG. Hence inverting PbtA, which at least got that right. The mistakes only seem to get greater from there.

It looks to me like Daggerheart uses the term "move" differently than PbtA does. A "move" in Daggerheart doesn't necessitate a roll. It's just what the PC is doing. The GM may or may not call for an ability roll based on what the PC's move is. Also, it doesn't have PbtA style playbooks. The sheets looks much more like D&D.

In general... Pundit, if you're not going to spend even five minutes researching the game, then I don't think you can make any claims about plagiarism. There are free playtest materials available here:

https://darringtonpress.com/daggerheart/

The game is written by lead designer Spenser Starke with additional designers Rowan Hall, Matthew Mercer, Alex Teplitz, and Michael Underwood. I don't see anything that's plagiarizing PbtA. It looks like there are some similarities, but far less than the similarities between, say, Palladium Fantasy and D&D.

I haven't read enough to have an opinion on the game at this point. I just took a few minutes to download the playtest and look up the moves quote.

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.

Greetings!

I always think it is hilarious how it seems like all of the Liberal males are these feminized, pop-eyed cucks. They look so weak and feminized. So soft and full of jello.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

From what I saw on Double D's stream, the game is actually fairly crunchy. However, I like my crunch to be in service of simulation. From what I can gather, the crunch here

This looks like crunch to be gimmicky. It looks to be more of a board game with roleplaying elements rather than a roleplaying game, with all that action tracker, tokens for dice roll bonus stuff, and cards for class features. Most likely, that's all made in service of monetization. Critical Role will surely create and sell all those fiddly bits and the fanbase will buy them no matter what.

It also has the "Lines & Veils" and X-Card BS that I've come to learn is the absolute bane of any good roleplaying game. And the way the game is structured means the loudest players will get more spotlight. Sure, the game says players are encouraged to put the spotlight on players that haven't acted that much (less or no action tokens in the action token tracker) but that's 100% up to the table.

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.

I am not a RAW purist, but I can completely understand that approach and a game as a system is only as good as it can run RAW. If the game is only good because the GM is good with "rulings over rules" then the game is not good, the GM is. A great GM can run any game and make it great.

As cumbersome as it may be, only individual Initiative is actually tactical. But above all of that, its the only approach that is based on simulation, since IRL everyone acts at their own pace/reaction time.

This is a product made for their own fanbase, since they will buy anything with the CR brand.

Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 04:15:38 AM
It also has the "Lines & Veils" and X-Card BS that I've come to learn is the absolute bane of any good roleplaying game.

X-Cards I absolutely agree, but "Lines & Veils", if I understand it is just setting boundaries on what a tabletop finds acceptable; usually in a session 0/planning session. Most of the things that fall under that header are puerile things grown adults have no need to waste time detailing vs. fading to black and moving the game along, so I see nothing wrong with reminding new GMs (given that CR-viewership to playing may skip the "learn via D&D" step) of things like "be aware of your player's discomfort levels" that they'd learn from playing at someone else's table first.

QuoteI'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.

Side-based Initiative is fine IF the system used has alternating activations* and/or alternate attack and resolution phases.** There's way more systems than D&D out there for mechanics to be played with and more fluid initiative (vs. cyclic initiative) I've found delivers a much more exciting scenario for the players with more interesting choices to make.

* i.e. side A has one character act, then side B takes a proportional number of turns (ex. 5 PCs vs. 15 monsters means 3 monsters act for each PC who does. Who goes in which order knowing the other side gets to respond with one or more of its units going becomes a tactical consideration, as can allowing someone to go at the end of one turn, and then at the start of the next to exploit some weakness before the other side can close it because you won the initiative that round.

** i.e. everyone's turns are considered simultaneous so, even if you hit and damage something during the turn, it still gets its actions during the turn before any damage dealt or other conditions come into play. This type of system commonly has the winner of initiative go after the losers if there are counteractions that can be employed. Ex. in Battletech (which uses both alternating activations and separate phases) movement is a separate phase from attacking and there is a seperate resolution phase. In a game with firing arcs and weak rear armor, being able to move after your opponent is a significant advantage that goes to the initiative winner.

The reason why Matt Mercers new Andrew Koebel simulator won't be successful is this:

The game will not include introverts.

I haven't seen any studies, but I'm willing to bet that 80%+ of the TTRPG crowds are introverts.  I know I fucking am.  I'd rather sit back and go with the group.  Now when I DM, I get to set up the world I want to run and sit back and listen to the players as they try to figure out what the fuck is going on, its entertaining as fuck.  AND Mercer's little shitfest, there is no initiative and you talk whenever and to what extent you want for language and moves. A lot of players are going to up and leave when they find that out.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2024, 05:03:38 PM

Quote from: Wisithir on March 16, 2024, 04:48:15 PM
The only game pretentious performers ever come up with is a storygame.

From what little was discussed of this game itself, it seems to be an inversion of PbtA. I am unsurprised that these clowns managed to to screw up even a storygame. Who could have known that voice acting twats are not (story)game designers.

I could actually appreciate some of the "game" concepts involved if the implementation was good instead of complete garbage.

Having now learned more about it, it strikes me that actually it's not just a rip off of pbta games. It's like Spenser Starke, the ghostwriter, just put up a bunch of Storygamer Trash on a wall and threw darts at it. Ironically, the game seems super incoherent, which means Forge people would despise it.

BTW: Spenser Starke looks exactly like you might imagine (if you visualize male feminist beta):

No he doesn't match my image of a male feminist, he's missing the large floppy purple dildo stuck to his forehead.

There was hardly any "uhs" in this?

Obviously AI generated! (OR.... POD PEOPLE!!!)



The minute they started using storygamer words like "the fiction" you know its gonna be a bumpy road ahead, and a ravine at the end.

I doubt Stranger Things had a big a impact on 5e as expected.

Ad for early hostility to 5e. Alot of it was from 4e extremists. And the woke were making inroads into 5e really early on by influencing Mearls.