What is PbtA? Well, [the Baker's definition](http://apocalypse-world.com/pbta/policy): > "Powered by the Apocalypse" isn't the name of a kind of game, set of game elements, or even the core design thrust of a coherent movement. (Ha! This last, the least so.) Its use in a game's trade dress signifies ONLY that the game was inspired by Apocalypse World in a way that the designer considers significant, and that it follows our policy wrt others' use of our creative work. Is Daggerheart inspired by Apocalypse World? I think so: Meguey Baker co-authored Apocalypse World *and* the post-apocalyptic "Motherboard" campaign frame in Daggerheart. I would be surprised if Mercer would not have credited PbtA somewhere. If Darrington Press would like to, Meg and Vincent would probably approve with the "PbtA" stamp. It doesn't use the "2d6+stat" role mechanic but [that is not essential](https://lumpley.games/2019/12/30/powered-by-the-apocalypse-part-1/) just like all the other game mechanics. I'm sorry. This is probably not very helpful. Maybe a more precise answer could be given if you ask how it diverges from "Dungeon World" or some other PbtA game you know.

You mean like a System Reference Document? [it's here](https://www.daggerheart.com/srd/)

I think that the Critical Role crew has done their utmost to conflate DnD with improv stage performance and that Daggerheart looks like nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand. Idk, it might be fun — don't let my personal feelings about Critical Role cloud your judgement. I just have been very disappointed with Critical Role and have decided to vote with my wallet.

Same here. I was kind of interested in Daggerheart as something to propose as an alternative for my friends who dig the tradgame vibe (I honestly assumed it was going to be very 5e like but with some tweaks and serial numbers filed off), but hearing it's PbtA-like has dashed all my interest.

Huh. Thanks for sharing. I'm totally up for critically evaluating Critical Role and Daggerheart. I do agree that their 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. I'm curious: what is it about Daggerheart that makes you think it's nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand? As to not letting your personal feelings about Critical Role clouding 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.

Totally valid. I assume you like combat simulators like Dungeons and Dragons. Is that the case? If not, what do you dislike about PbtA?

For me it's not so much combat I'm looking for as competence (and due to this, D&D 5e irritates me for largely restricting competence to combat by various means). PBtA rubs me the wrong way primarily because, when combined with a system that makes "yes, but" the most common result, moves feel less like the things your character can do well and more like the things characters try to do despite not being good at them.

Also, PBtA games tend to dictate *who* your character is more than most.

Gotcha. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that PbtA has a narrower statistical distribution of dice rolls than games that you like. In other words, PbtA might relatively flatten the probability of everything, while other games make some things just flat out either impossible or trivial (depending on your characters' level). At the same time, character proficiency is not trivial. In other words, an incompetent character will definitely fail much more than a competent character. The Apocalypse World creator [did the math for us](https://lumpley.games/2024/04/29/powered-by-the-apocalypse-part-11-dice/):  Imagine going from 30% likelihood of success to 90% likelihood of success. Regardless, I still concede that other games could be much more brutal or much more lenient (depending on character competence). And this, on its own, could be seen as a bug and not a feature. I happen to see it as a feature: try it out, burn the world down, rebuild it, all in one session. The story coming out of that session will be probably be interesting! Now, as to overconstrained characters, I also agree here. However, the way that Apocalypse World does characters is decidedly not how all PbtA games do characters. Vincent Baker himself has said that his character playbooks are a sort of historical accident and that other PbtA games could be entirely different. This is not just speculation, it's a fact. Take Ironsworn or Starforged. Both of those games have ridiculous flexibility around character creation. You don't have playbooks: all characters start with the same blank slate of a character sheet. You build your character with combinations of cards, and there are hundreds of them.

That's cool, I didn't realise PbtA was such a broad term in its own right. I've played a little Dungeon World and others, but not enough to know the background of all that.

Standing by! Haha

I have a friend who’s looking at developing a series on new DM’s entering Daggerheart. I’m really curious to see how the game waxes while Hasbro seems intent on making 5e wane. I personally really enjoy 5e for casual play, and would probably play Pathfinder with a great roleplaying party. Not sure about Daggerheart, but curious if it grows on me. Hasbro seems intent on forcing D&D into a subscription model, and the CR people have a real opening here.

Compared to Dungeon World, [the Hope/Fear counters](https://seansbox.github.io/daggerheart-srd/contents/Making%20Moves%20and%20Taking%20Action/#hope-fear) are a difference. I'm not sure where they got it from. To me it seems somewhat like [Fate points](https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/fate-points).

> thanks for caring about not biasing me Games are games, I try not to yuck anyone's yum. > What is it about Daggerheart that makes you think it's nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand? 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.

Dang. That's a cool dice mechanic. I must be spoiled with ORE, but it feels like a lot of work to get one dice roll out of the way. It doesn't bog things down, do you find?

[Youtube interview of Mercer about the Hope-Fear mechanic](https://youtu.be/aa7NlnS-bKI?t=554). I had no chance to try it myself.

I get it now. I like the idea of having a visual build-up of threat stemming from dice rolls.

I see Daggerheart as a possible introduction to PBtA style games most strictly DnD tables may be willing to try. License-related news turned me off the game, I was indifferent before. But I'm happy that it inspires enough interest in tables who refuse to try any other game than DnD. There's nothing wrong with only wanting to play DnD, it's just a pity to miss the opportunity to experience other styles that may be more enjoyable to the groups who force DnD to fill a roll it's not equipped to.

> I…would probably play Pathfinder with a great roleplaying party. Pathfinder 2e does have some more tools for roleplaying, but the game's real strength is tactical combat. Pathfinder 2e wants to be D&D 4e done right.

Not the person you asked but I'm taking this opportunity to talk about why I wouldn't play pbta as my main game. One, I rarely feel like my character is competent. I'm usually rolling mixed success, and that feels bad. A good GM can take the edge off there. they can make it so the problem was circumstances or the strength of your enemy, instead of your fuck up. But most GMs aren't good, they're average. Related, and I think this might have been a result of not liking the GM, when I do get a mixed success it often feels like the GM is just fucking with me. It felt very unilateral. They decide what happens with no buy-in from the table needed. When I run Fate, mixed successes are a proposal the player can accept, decline, or suggest another idea. Third, playbooks feel like mad libs instead of writing. So much is already defined, typically, it's constraining and anchoring. I don't feel like I'm really making something of my own. I can see how that's really helpful for some people but I don't enjoy it. I much prefer the utterly freeform mode of Fate. I want to be a chaos magick using librarian? I can just write that down. I had fun doing a one shot of rapscallions a couple weeks ago, but I wouldn't make it my main game.

Yeah!!! I love a SRD. Looks like I know what I am doing while goofing off at work today