Daggerheart: Hope & Fear

Some say players accumulate hope much faster than the referee does fear, which could be a huge problem and destroy any challenge as players "pile on" with buckets of hope points. As a referee, going into a boss fight with a few fear points could mean the encounter would be a cakewalk for the players.

I feel part of this comes from not knowing the game, and referees feeling they need to "spend fear" to make a move, which the rules are clear on:

GMs also make moves. They should consider making a move when a player does one of the following things:

• Rolls with Fear on an action roll.
• Fails an action roll.
• Does something that would have consequences.
• Gives them a golden opportunity.
• Looks to them for what happens next.

After the GM's turn is done, the spotlight goes back to the PCs. 

- Daggerheart SRD, page 37 

Rolls with fear or ANY failure (RWF/F)? The GM gets the spotlight. The rules say, "consider making a move," which is bad advice. Make a move! Do not slack on taking enemy action when ANY player RWF or fails. If you are not forcing enemy attacks each and every time a player RWF/F, you are gimping your fights. If that purple die is ever higher than the yellow, someone in the party is getting whacked.

While RWF gets the referee a fear point, a failure does not, but both give the GM a chance to make a move. Take them. Don't be soft on this, since this will be the majority of the opposition's action budget.

How do you spend fear?

Spend a Fear to:

• Interrupt the players to steal the spotlight and make a move
• Make an additional GM move
• Use an adversary’s Fear Feature
• Use an environment’s Fear Feature
• Add an adversary’s Experience to a roll

- Daggerheart SRD, page 64

By spending fear, you can steal the spotlight, but you should be getting it on 50% of player rolls anyway, just due to chance. Also, remember, while resting, the referee accumulates fear. Spending fear to steal the spotlight should be a last resort, or saved for killing blows or other moments. The clever play is making a second move (or more) by spending a fear point, which means multiple enemies go on your spotlight turn.

Do not give the players any slack. Attack every chance you can get.

And don't burn your fear resource a few encounters ahead of the boss fight.

However, do not think that the only time the GM gets the spotlight is by spending fear. You are missing a massive part of the intended action economy. However, if people are correct and fear points are scarce, then using an adversary's special attacks and environmental features will not be feasible. The challenge will be negatively affected by a random factor.

I wonder if it was a great idea to narratively limit the referee's power using an artificial resource. The referee is busy enough running Daggerheart and keeping the puppet strings, making things work, and spending "referee points" to "make things happen," when in other games the referee can simply "just do it anyway," seems strange. It makes the game harder to run, and now the referee must balance encounters, run the narrative, communicate the environment, manage NPCs, reference rules, run combat, and manage a resource pool.

This is where the Cypher System excels. As a GM, I am not spending pool points to trip a boss's special attack; those are written into the monster. Monsters have their "boss attacks" used as GM Intrusions. I am not spending a limited resource to make a boss attack, as I can just call for a GM Intrusion for that monster, hand out XP to the players, and make it happen. Yes, I am handing out "free XP," but that XP can be handed back to refuse GM Intrusions, including boss monster attacks.

How many GM Intrusions do you have? They are infinite, but you are handing out XP with each one. With Player Intrusions, the players need to spend an XP to trigger them, and the referee has the final say (which protects the narrative and balance of the game).

Cypher's GM Intrusions are not "referee points." This is what being a referee is all about: rewarding players who take on extra adversity, while giving them more than enough XP to deal with it and push back.

Cypher System's narrative economy is easier, cleaner, and does not rely on tracking resources and generation by the players. It does not depend on random chance, and players do not make rolls to generate referee currency. Referees have no currency in Cypher; heck, they don't even have dice.

You call for a GM Intrusion when it is narratively correct, see if a player spends XP to refuse, and if they agree, you hand out the XP and tell them what happens next.

You keep playing.

The players are the only ones tracking pools, XP, health levels, and resources.

All a referee focuses on is the story.

Dragonbane is also great when it comes to boss monsters. They roll on a random chart every time they act. This can be solo-played very easily. You don't need narrative pools, just your imagination. This is a more traditional game than Cypher System or Daggerheart, but it also shows that you can use a random system to trigger boss attacks and have the game work correctly in the narrative.

I don't need a fear point to activate a dragon's breath weapon; all I need is the fear of not rolling it again.

Daggerheart remains a solid game, boasting numerous innovative mechanics. Other games excel in areas like narrative play. Others are more mechanical. One is not generally better than the other; each must be considered in light of a group's preferences, play style, and whether the game assembles enough interesting elements to make it compelling.

For mechanics, it is Dragonbane for me.

For narrative, it is Cypher System.

Daggerheart, I need to feel out whether this can be played solo at all, or if it's more of a group experience, like Pathfinder 2. Daggerheart is more of a collection of good things. If all these blend well and appeal to you, then great! This is your game. If other games do things better and would be a better fit for groups that like different styles, I will say so.

Be cautious about relying solely on limited reports of play and forming your opinion of the game based on them. Some groups could be playing the game wrong, report something wildly incorrect, and you will get a group of people online adopting false information as their opinion.

Play the game, and make up your own mind.

I return to the Daggerheart SRD, a free resource, and since it lacks art, it can serve as a more effective "quick resource" for rules. The page numbers in the index are significantly off in the current version, and I hope they will be corrected soon.

Yes, I can see how "going into a boss fight with limited fear" can be a problem, and the game tells GMs to spend "fast, often, and big." Also, don't let players make rolls for every little stupid thing. If the die roll has no meaning or impact, just "say they do it." Move the narrative along, and don't roll for every silly thing! This will freeze pool generation, but it will still reach the parts of the game where it matters when it is being generated.

If there is no consequence of failure, don't roll.

Also, think twice before setting a target number of 10 or lower. Do you really need to make this roll? Just give it to them! Most of your critical die rolls should be a target number of 15 or higher.

The action, "walk quickly across a narrow beam," is rated as a difficulty 10 agility roll. Most of the time, if the players were not under threat, had no arrows flying at them, and were not in a hurry, I would never roll for that. Yes, there is a "consequence" of "falling into the river," but I will ask you, "Is that really a consequence if nothing is going on around them?" 

What does it matter? Someone gets wet?

So what?

No real consequence, no die roll is needed, no hope and fear generation; move on, I do not care.

Do not get "die roll happy" with this game. Be stingy when you ask for dice rolls. Keep them essential and impactful.

Also, there is this rule in the SRD:

If there’s a rule you’d rather ignore or modify, feel free to implement any change with your table’s consent.

- Daggerheart SRD, page 3

If your bosses are getting rolled over, simply consider adding a rule where the referee receives a d4 of fear when a boss encounter starts. If the players agree, then the problem is solved. They don't want cakewalks any more than you.

Kickstarter: Arkand & Book of Magic for Free League's Dragonbane RPG

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1192053011/arkand-and-the-book-of-magic-for-the-acclaimed-dragonbane-rpg

Where have all the high-earning Kickstarter projects gone? Why aren't there any 5E Kickstarters that have broken a million lately?

The answer is, people have moved on. The 2024 D&D release has effectively killed most third-party 5E Kickstarter campaigns, as people fear compatibility issues and are hesitant to buy into one side or the other, leaving the market stagnant. Perhaps for now, and likely gone for good. Even DM's Guild is seriously hurting.

As the third parties go, the main game will surely follow.

Many have moved on to other games, like Dragonbane, which is doing exceptionally well with its expansion Kickstarter. A half-million with 20 days to go is impressive, not Shadowdark levels, but still, this is impressive. Shadowdark's Kickstarter projects continue to impress, and even first-time and new creators are breaking 10 or 20K in support. That is not 5E levels, but for books few have heard about, people are grabbing them for their groups.

Shadowdark is here to stay.

Even ToV, with its expansion Player's Guide currently moving towards 200K, is a good showing for something that is a game that most already have. ToV's problem is that people need a reason to switch, and for me, the PDF ownership, solid 2014 compatibility, support, and the Not Wizards factor are good enough reasons to go Open 5E. ToV also offers far better support and future-proofing than A5E, a game I still like but have grown less fond of. ToV is the solid, forward-looking choice here, and we can always add in rules to replace what other 5E versions offered.

But Dragonbane is more than worthy, and with its solo-play rules, it is a very compelling game for people like me. The half-million mark means you are a serious contender in the hobby. For an expansion? These are good numbers.

Dragonbane is still on my living room shelves as one of my "guests see this" games, and one I am proud to display. Visually, this is stunning and grabs me; it's an instant point of interest and discussion: "What is that?" The monster rules are amazing. The design is solid. Everything about this game sings to me.

Dragonbane is worthy and growing in the post-D&D age.

Off the Shelf: Dragonbane

Dragonbane has always been a hard game for me to start playing. It is a fantastic game with a lot of options and flair, and even a solo-play mode. Most all of the Free League games these days have excellent solo play rules these days, which is a huge attraction for me, a mostly solo player.

Shadowdark is killing this for me since it is easier to play with others, being a 5E Lite game. I can play Shadowdark with people, they assume it is homebrew 5E Lite, and then they are surprised that it is a real game, easy to play, and well-supported. A game I can play with others will win over a solo experience every time.

Dragonbane is also close to some other excellent games I own, such as Runequest and Basic Roleplaying. It isn't the same game, but it shares a few similarities. Dragonbane leans more towards token and card-based play, with initiative cards, treasure cards, and all sorts of extras - including bosses that are random tables of special attacks.

Still, Dragonbane feels like a simplified d20 version of Runequest, meant for fast combat and dungeon play with a skill-based flavor. The classes and races are very compelling. The art is amazing, all the books are top-quality, yet I never seem to have time for this one. I guess I am not hearing the call to adventure, or something just feels "off" to me.

Fair or not, I feel the game is tightly linked to its setting, in the same way Forbidden Lands and Runequest are. With Shadowdark I feel this can be "any world" and fit in with any setting I can imagine. Same with Basic Roleplaying. I loved the original Nerrath setting for D&D 4, and Dragonbane feels similar, but I am not feeling it.

Perhaps I need to play this some more to understand.

All of my Free League games have a home in my living room, since these are more social, sort of "bookcase" games that appeal to everyone. The Walking Dead, Alien, Blade Runner - many of these people "know" and they are better suited to being in a more social space. Even Forbidden Lands, Tales from the Loop, and Twilight: 2000 are living room games.

I have never boxed up a Free League game into storage.

Dragonbane is a game many move to after Shadowdark, and it is a more heroic, kick down the doors, roll for skills, and go in, spells blazing sort of game than the careful playstyle Shadowdark can tend towards. The game also uses words carefully, I have a few "supposedly simple" games go on and on for long-winded paragraphs on how a rule works, when all they need is one sentence and to move on.

The game uses different systems than my OSR, B/X, and Shadowdark core games. I suppose it is different enough my nice library of OSR games doesn't play well with it. When in doubt, I play OSR, and I can switch games if I get bored with one, and everything still works the same. This is another reason why I don't find enough time for the equally excellent, but also different, Forbidden Lands.

Dragonbane is going back on the living room shelf, for a while. I have too many other things out, needing to be played. This one is still a gem in the rough, though, and worthy of keeping out of the garage.

The RPG as Social Glue

Shadowdark captures the original D&D aesthetic just like how the original Traveller Book captured the 2d6 science fiction spark of imagination. Do these self-contained tomes have every option, provide the most detailed combat systems, or give your billions of combinations of options?

No.

Doing any of those things would ruin what these games are, and the possibilities they offer.

Forget today's encyclopedic games which are shelf fodder for the collector's market, and not games which can be easily played with others. The best game is one small rulebook and infinite possibilities. Very few games capture this. Even the new Traveller has dipped into the collector's market a bit too deeply, and that game is a hard sell for me to anyone interested in science fiction.

With D&D, you are talking nearly $200 in books to get started, a subscription service, reading hundreds of pages of rules and options, learning a VTT, and becoming familiar with action types, turns, and all sorts of special conditions, spells, powers, and abilities. The D&D Starter Set is probably the best edition of the game, and you should ignore the rest. Very few people play past the levels given in the Starter Set, and the game at high levels is horribly broken.

Just selling someone on "hey, play this with me!" is an impossible task unless they are already deeply invested in the D&D market. Most average people, when I go up to them and offer to play a RPG with them?

Forget it. D&D is too big to even suggest. Too big of a cost, time investment, purchase, reading requirement, and commitment for any average person to make. I bring D&D up to people outside the gaming market, and I get blank stares and a feeling I should "go play with people who already know the game." D&D as "social glue" only works on those already sold on the game.

Shadowdark is different. I can start up a Shadowdark game with those outside the D&D sphere, they say "what is this" and they see how easy it is, and they are instantly interested and know "I can have fun playing this!" Me, as someone who runs the game, has a "social value" to others as a "person who plays a fun game."

And I can get anyone playing the "full version" of Shadowdark with just the Starter Set, and me owning a book. The character sheets are so simple, and what you need to read and learn can be easily passed on in one minute of showing someone how things work. The game plays like the classic Hero Quest or Dungeon boardgames, where it is just "move your piece and do something" every turn.

Shadowdark is this generation's "Basic D&D." This is the game Wizards should be selling for the hobby, and D&D has turned into a grognard-like mess of rules, options, special actions, bloated options, and an almost "Advanced Squad Leader" feeling to the entire heavy and book-heavy framework.

I can't sell people on D&D anymore.

The 2014 books were an easier sell, honestly.

These days? It is a non-starter with thousands of backward-compatible options confusing the market, and the game depending on online character creation tools. I have to sell people on a game, time commitment, huge purchase, website, subscription service, microtransactions, and a huge buy-in to get started. There is even a social commitment (orcs, drow, half-races) you need to make to align yourself with the designer's vision of the game that feels like it overreaches into your imagination.

Shadowdark is my "social glue" for fantasy these days. I can play it with someone in a heartbeat, introduce it in a minute, show them a zero-cost point of entry, and get them in game with me without them needing to buy a book or sign up for a subscription service. Sorry, Wizards, I am not selling D&D Beyond to other people to play games with me. I am not doing your sales pitches anymore.

Shadowdark works because everything is kept dirt simple.

And once people play, they are hooked, and can join in the fun for free.

I tried putting Shadowdark in storage many times and walking away from the game. To me, it was too simple and did not fill my grognard need of rules, realism, and options. I loved the respect it paid to the classic hobby, and the art and how the game is designed pays a lot of respect to the old ways. I loved the presentation, but felt the game was too simple to hold my interest.

To be honest, I feel Dragonbane fits in this equation somewhere, as the power-fantasy game many play alongside Shadowdark. Where in Shadowdark you need to play carefully, Dragonbane feels like the "charge in, slashing swords and casting spells" style of fantasy many prefer (minus the D&D commitment and bulk).

But every time I gave Shadowdark a chance with others, outside the hobby, I made new friends who were interested. I know, after a while, someone will try to sell them on D&D, but they will likely end up disappointed and leaving the hobby because for them, D&D is too big to play. D&D is the wrong game for them. They will get in, make the purchases, and feel ripped off because they don't have the time in their lives to get involved with a hobby that demands a majority of your time and attention.

Shadowdark?

I can pick this game up and put it down like a boxed set of Monopoly. For others, that is the same level of understanding and commitment they need to invest. Want to play Shadowdark? Yes! Cool! And there we are, zero time and prep needed, hand out a few simple character sheets, and we are playing a game together.

The "social glue" of Shadowdark works, and it works well.

Off the Shelf: Dragonbane

Dragonbane, a game I've been eagerly anticipating, is a d20-style, simplified fork of Runequest. What truly sets it apart and piques my interest is its innovative solo-playable mechanics, particularly the use of initiative cards. The game's 'solo play' rules and grim-fantasy aesthetic, reminiscent of classic Warhammer Fantasy and folklore, further enhance its appeal.

Dragonbane, much like Shadowdark, is a rules-light adventure game with a comprehensive skill system and intricate combat mechanics. However, it distinguishes itself by offering a different experience, one that is less resource-focused and more about the exhilaration of prewritten adventures. This departure from the hex-crawl style of Forbidden Lands adds a unique thrill to the game.

The balance is flatter, again, on the level of a Runequest or other d100 game. Experience comes from skills, and combat is deadly. The game also feels like a "sandbox," like you have a map, and your story is how your character (or party) navigates through this place and all the trouble they find along the way. There are also card elements to the game, like treasure cards, which provide a source of power and "leveling up."

I like the monsters and how their turn actions are randomized. There is also a "random action table" for NPCs in the solo rules, so you can play this solo and manage to have the monsters and enemies surprise you. Very few games do this, and it is a fantastic solo-play mechanic, along with a tool for referees to "run" monsters effectively.

I get most any 5E monster manual, and monsters above a certain CR are always homework assignments to learn how to use effectively. Every D&D-like game post-year 2000 has this problem, from D&D 3.0 on through Pathfinder 1e, and even 5E has these complex "homework monsters" that are a pain to run if the dungeon contains more than a handful of different types. You get an adventure for 12th-level characters and have a weekend of research to effectively run a dozen high-level foes.

Part of why high-level play in 5E seems like the characters are invincible is likely because very few game masters can run those monster stat blocks effectively. Dragonbane solves the problem, eliminating GM bias and aversion to complex magic and condition-based attacks.

You can also randomly create a hero, wholly randomized in kin, class, age, gear, and background. You can play Dragonbane like a rouge-like game, solo, with your character advancing, finding treasures, and completing missions as you go.

The game's solo missions are more abstract than the Shadowdark map-based style; in Dragonbane, you create a dungeon by stringing together waypoints, and you can do a rough map like a connected bubble graph. Once you solve or clear a waypoint, you move on to the next one.

Dungeons in Dragonbane are smaller; encounter sites have from 1-4 locations, medium ones have 4-10 areas, while the larger dungeons have 12-20 rooms. Most places have just 1-2 locations of note and a story point that happens there. I would keep most dungeons in the 6-9 "bubble" range for solo play. You aren't mapping and exploring as much as solving problems, fighting, and using your skills in these places.

I see a lot of similarities to Forbidden Lands here. Still, Dragonbane feels like a simplified system focused on the "situation and character sheet" dungeon and fight gameplay loop. Forbidden Lands feels like a Civilization-style game, where you are simulating a grand and epic quest of exploration, where the action feels a step away, and you are exploring hexes, building strongholds, and discovering ancient places of wonder. The broad sweeps of narrative action, timekeeping, and resource management while in dangerous lands make Forbidden Lands compelling from a "sim" perspective and dip a little into fantasy wargaming.

Forbidden Lands feels more like a "fantasy novel simulator" than a "dungeon game." Characters die frequently here; there are even stickers to mark where your heroes met at the end of their tales. If Gorm the dwarf died on this hill protecting his friends from skeletons two years ago, we mark this map spot with a sticker (and perhaps, in-game, a small memorial of stones) and call it "Gorm's Hill" in his honor.

Forbidden Lands is a "sim" style game.

Everything you do in Forbidden Lands is worldbuilding. There is a map where everything happens during play and is generated organically. It is a "Legacy" style game, where the map and "game board" change each time you play, and a fresh start is called for. You can keep one map going for years over dozens of parties and adventures, with new generations picking up the sword for adventure.

Forbidden Lands is also more complex in mechanics. There are a lot of special rules and dice with symbols, each of which has a special meaning. The book has "subsection rules" that make sense of the results, what can happen when, and how to take the abstract dice results and make those work in the game. You must keep an "operating system layer" in your head when playing; much like Savage Worlds, the game relies on a translation layer framework between the die results and your character.

Dragonbane feels more "play from the character sheet" than Forbidden Lands.

Dragonbane focuses on the "here and now dungeon game" and succeeds wildly. It is more character-focused, with more skills and character details than Forbidden Lands. It is less "Lord of the Rings" and more "Conan" in a novel perspective. The action and mystery are immediate. Characters have three times the depth. The fights are visceral and detailed. You have thirty skills that define your character, plus unique heroic traits, spells, and other abilities. This is a "zoomed-in" fantasy with the character in tight focus.

Dragonbane is an action RPG.

Dragonbane has a map and campaign setting; the first adventure focuses on that valley. You can ignore it and create your own setting, like a hew-crawl or dark fantasy style. Dragonbane has a cartoonish, gritty, dark fantasy vibe, almost as if Darkwing Duck were a mature graphic novel for adults and published in Heavy Metal, with plenty of blood, violence, and classic Batman Animated Series character designs out of the 1990s. Forbidden Lands feels like Larry Elmore Dragonlance art, by comparison.

Dragonbane is a good game. It is simple, fast, playable, and fun, and its art style inspires daring, dark, gritty, pulp adventure.

Dragonbane or Forbidden Lands?

This is a tough comparison. Dragonbane does the whole 5E cinematic combat thing so well, but it is easier. It also has a Runequest feeling, and the game's name here is innovation while embracing the best parts of modern systems. The math is nearly nonexistent. AC? What's that? Roll under your skill with no modifiers if you want to hit. Conditions are rolling with a disadvantage on skill and ability checks. If you want a d20 game that plays fast and loose while tossing out all the tedious and obsolete rules in most tabletop games, Dragonbane is it.

Solo play here is beyond excellent, on the level of heroic one-man armies. You are buffed when playing solo, giving me an epic, larger-than-life feeling.

This is the beer and pretzels fantasy game to play.

Forbidden Lands? Both are excellent games. This is survival and hex crawls. Building strongholds. Slowly uncovering a world, hex-by-hex, while tracking supplies, foraging along the way, making use of cooking skills to extend the food you find, and sometimes dying in the middle of nowhere to put down a death sticker, and begin the life of a new adventurer to pick up the torch and continue the quest.

Forbidden Lands is a more in-depth set of rules. Where Dragonbane feels like the Basic D&D of old, which delivered fast and fun gameplay, Forbidden Lands feels like AD&D to me. They aren't the same system, as these rules are not d20 - they are more the traditional Year Zero rules.

Dragonbane does not make Forbidden Lands obsolete. It may be for some groups, based on preferences of play styles.

Forbidden Lands feels much more like the "detailed sim" but with abstract survival elements. There are more rules here, and that also allows you more freedom when exploring, traveling, and surviving. All of your skills matter. A party with balanced fighting and wilderness skills shines. If you want to assemble a team of experts that can go out 30 miles over unexplored land, fight through the wilds, take on a bluff-top fortress of vile creatures, live off the land, and survive the trip home - this is your game.

All while discovering secrets and uncovering the land's mysteries and those leading into the next adventure. Forbidden Lands is still remarkable and touches that Year Zero fantasy survival game the base system does so well. It reminds me of the old Avalon Hill board games that mix exploration, adventure, and survival. It is a "living campaign world" and leverages maps you change and make your own with each play - like a "legacy" game.

Dragonbane? Dungeon crawls with a d20 flair, and the legacy junk that slows the game down is tossed out. This doesn't concern itself with living campaign worlds or simulation but delivers dungeon fun quickly and with far fewer rules to learn.

Sometimes, I want the survival simulation and to play using that "full phat" ruleset. Forbidden Lands fills that need. Granted, this is not an Aftermath survival level, and many detailed tracking aspects are abstracted, but the result is the same. Forcing a march, traveling at night, or ignoring your supplies can kill you, but you may be required to forgo safety in a maniac race against time.

I had this happen in my Road War campaign, where a character was out in the middle of nowhere with a damaged vehicle, low supplies, and weapons out of ammunition, and I wondered if they would make it back home. In Cypher System, you can burn XP for player intrusions, and I had to burn three to make it back in one piece. This is the price I pay.

The stakes are much higher in a more strict survival game without player narrative influence. And when I turn survival video games on hard mode, I get that same experience.

Dragonbane gives me that D&D 4th Edition feeling. The game they promised us of heroes and sword swinging from level one, but this time with a higher-level play that makes sense and does not devolve into tedious grinds of knocking down 1,000 hit points and doing 30 damage per attack. We had high-level 4th Edition combats where we saw where it was going early and said, "Yeah, this isn't changing; you win. Next encounter." Anyone trying to sell you on 4th Edition as-is as a solution to your gaming woes with 5E has not played it above the 15th level.

The Wizards team has sold broken high-level games as an afterthought and box-check for the last 20+ years. The lower-level play is excellent, which gives them a pass for most players. MCDM RPG feels like the next chance at a 4E-style game done right, but we shall see...

Until then, Dragonbane fills the 4E niche for me quite well.

Dragonbane is a flatter power curve, but you go from average to extraordinary. You are not scaling to absurdly high math levels, but you start to pick up skills and abilities and unlock more power as you go. You get that rag-tag collection of a mix of classic fantasy races, human-animal hybrid heroes, and instant heroic action with many hard choices. The monsters are loaded with unique attacks and abilities,  just like 4E, yet they aren't page-long blocks of obscure and mathematical stats.

Dragonbane feels like the action RPG where the monsters have these incredible scripted attacks, and the boss battles shine. This is more of a video game.

Forbidden Lands feels like Skyrim, where the game forces you to live in a living, breathing, dangerous world, and you need to live off the land to survive. This is more of a simulation.

Both are great, depending on my mood, and I don't need to play one or the other.

I can play both.

Mail Room: Dragonbane

I have always loved the low-fantasy genre, rooted in games like Runequest and Warhammer FRP. Both are d100 roll-under games, and Dragonbane covers the same genre with a d20 roll-under system. There is an excellent how-to-play video here that teaches you the basics of combat and gets you up to speed quickly on the flow of the game:

Note there is an error in the above video where he assumes you can 'hold an action' to parry - you can't, and this is a rule from Forbidden Lands. This was pointed out in a second video, so to err here on the side of learning to play, actions can't be held in this way. He also points out he is currently playing a Forbidden Lands game, so the little mistake is understandable.

This is quickly becoming a favorite solo-play game for many gamers, and I like the traditional roll-under mechanic and the quick, deadly fights with a deeper tactical aspect. Timing, dodging, and parries are essential to success and strategy.

The art is flat-out beautiful and unique. Very evocative!

The game isn't a fantasy superhero game, and the power level is lower than the big-name fantasy games. A lower power level invites more roleplaying and creative play, and it keeps magic mysterious and powerful. Anytime characters become walking power bags, their brains turn off, and they get a shoot-first mentality. Here, skills matter, and solving problems creatively makes a huge difference. There are no die roll modifiers here, and you are not doing any mathematical addition outside damage rolls. The play is speedy, and skill rolls are these pass-or-fail results - which is lovely.

This shames 5E's math and constant (and meaningless) numerical escalation. Bounded accuracy looks like a solution to a self-inflicted problem D&D never had until the Wizards team took over. This is a 5E killer for me, more so than Shadowdark.

There are three types of rest, and you get one of each every day. This reminds me a little of Cypher System and Low Fantasy Gaming. One is a 10-second turn, the other is 15 minutes, and the final takes six hours - so three rests daily. They allow you to recover hit points and willpower, recover conditions, and, the most prolonged rest, reset the character to normal.

In a more game-style resting system, restricting the number of daily rests is critical to play balance and tension. Otherwise, your party sleepwalks their way through a dungeon, and it ruins the experience like some sort of easily-exploited low-budget videogame. At that point, it seemed the designers didn't care about their game, so why should the players?

Some design teams just don't get it and live in the past.

So this game doesn't have wounding that extends across days and heals slowly, like B/X (sans magic healing) or games like GURPS. It does have a severe injury system for surviving zero hit points. It is a more modern, player-friendly wounding and recovery system and less of a simulation, but it still retains a deadly edge.

Equipment has a supply rating, which is a nice nod to everything not available everywhere. If you lose that great sword or it gets damaged, replacing it will not be easy. So even the gear system has that gritty reality and money. One gold coin is worth 100 coppers, and most weapons cost gold - some even 200. With you finding small amounts of gold on treasure cards, gold keeps its value.

Too many leading game systems use personal power as a motivation and not the story, gold, or danger of the world. Yes, the leading systems today are popular but shallow and poorly designed.

The game has solo-play rules, and solo characters are buffed a little to make them more survivable. I love this in the game, and The AMC Walking Dead Universe RPG also has rules like this. I love this inclusion of a single-player powerful hero ARPG experience. The game also has a solo adventure, which is another huge plus.

With many of the newer Free League games, the boxed experience plus solo play is a driving force in the design goals - and these are little things they can do that expand the value and appeal of the game. I like this design theory, keeping everything in a box and expanding.

You don't need to play the more mainstream games these days, and these more accessible, more focused, well-crafted games can easily replace your more giant, bloated, multi-book games that focus more on boatloads of unbalanced quantity or too many similar options. If you think you need to play the top two or three pen-and-paper games, you are missing out on many great experiences.

Overall, it is a great boxed set with tremendous solo-playability. I am looking forward to diving in and playing this one.