Is it already dead?
>>97175367Like anything that’s not PF, 5e, or WoD it will have a very limited audience. I found it very gimmicky from what I read.
>>97175367"Still" implies they ever did in the first place.
>>97175367Even the people who made it don't play it.
why do you care, nogames.
>>97175502Because it's pretty funny that they went through all that effort to make a game they wouldn't even play.
>>97175502Because I want to laugh at it.And I had to group to play... once, but I always disliked D&D, there are tons of games out there, I just find annoying people who makes money out D&D realease a competitor saying how much is a great game and then drop it after a lot bucks to going back to milk the shit out of D&D.
>>97175367Its a shame, The CR guys has a golden opportunity to make a genuine competitor to DnD. Pathfinder exists, but thats a fork of the 3.5 crowd. Thats basically ancient these days. Critical Role was tied at the hip to 5e as a brand, and there was a real chance that if CR went off in their own direction they could pull a critical mass from the 5e demographic and do something with it. But Daggerheart... just isn't that product. Its too obviously gimmicky, and it has "quirky ideas" but it doesn't seem like there is anything that it actually does WELL as a selling point. Like, if you were to sit down and try and convince a player to give Daggerheart a try, what would you even say? Whats the pitch? What makes it a better fit for X style of game over literally any other fantasy RPG?
>>97175367>Game so bad the creators won't even play it in their own campaign
>>97175715Yeah that was pretty damning. Like, what the fuck happened where you make your OWN GAME after you are a game streaming phenomenon and you don't even use it in your streaming? Thats free advertising for the thing you own!
>>97175674They could have also padded out their social media presence with tutorials and previews and community interaction. Teach them how to play the game. Tell them what they think makes it cool. Share some stories from playing it. Y'know... basic bitch advertisement and promotion for the product they want to sell as many people on as possible.Instead they just went running back to D&D and promoting WotC's garbage to the people they just conned out of 60 dollars.
>>97175474>>97175715>>97175720>>97175759This will never stop being funny. What the fuck were they thinking?
>>97175674Literally all they had to do was make a 5e clone with the serial numbers filed off, maybe throw in a couple new classes and fiddle with the skill system a bit if you're feeling ambitious. That's all anyone was expecting, that's all their own players and their audience would want. Then they could've comfortably played their new campaign with their new system like one great big advertisement and they would've made a boatload of money.The only feasible explanation I have aside from sheer incompetence is that WotC saw the writing on the wall early on and threw a boatload of money to keep them on DnD, so CR let the game designers fuck around and do whatever they wanted, since it didn't really matter anymore.
>>97175759>Instead they just went running back to D&D and promoting WotC's garbage to the people they just conned out of 60 dollars.One must assume that they got a boatload of money out of Hasbro, or some other deal, to stick with pushing DnD. Perhaps Hasbro was holding production of the cartoons hostage or something, threatening costly legal action on anything they could theoretically claim was DnD based in them. I could see that.
>>97175813See, what I was *hoping* they were going to do with Daggerheart was a 5E clone... but with more narrative gameplay elements. It makes sense, right? Critical Role is theater kid bullshit most of the time anyway, so something that plays well with that mode of play but with a DnD ripoff framework would have been a good extension of their brand and an easy sell for what sets it apart from 5E: "Look at all of the cool things you can do with us but not them!'Instead we got... some really boring races, and some shit with cards no one cared enough about to learn.
>>97175820Any legal threat would be hollow because a public lawsuit would be complete PR suicide for Hasbro, but maybe CR would be too scared to call out the obvious bluff
>>97175367bigger question is if anyone ever did. it was DOA. have you read it? what a mess. let me know what you think of the damage mechanic lol. built for stupid staged meme campaigns and even then it couldn't land. but it will forever hold a niche in the hearts of people who make "not playing D&D" their primary personality trait, even if they don't play it either>>97175759>>97175820easiest decision of their life - why chance alienating your audience when you can leverage hasbro?
>>97175367I got to try it at PAXU. Going into it, I chalked it up as just another dnd clone and had no interest in critical roll slop, but honestly I was pleasantly surprised. Incorporating descriptions into the mechanics of the game is a good way to force shitters to actually roleplay. It's structured but open ended. Mechanically, I like the d12s if only because never will I have to endure "NAT 20!!" while playing. If my normie friends want to play daggerheart, that fact alone is enough for me, but there's also something there. This is from the perspective of someone who knows they're inevitably going to be DMing.
>>97175367>is it already dead?But enough about me playing games, let's discuss Daggerheart. Does it do anything better than 5e?
>>97175878Because Hasbro is a fucking parasite and CR could've easily walked away with their audience if they knew what they were doing and committed to it. Being beholden to a company that's being kept afloat almost entirely by prostituting out MtG to 3rd party IPs isn't exactly ideal.
>>97175367No one ever played it, and yes.>>97175502>>97175474>>97175549No refunds, sucker! Hahahaha!
>>97175367Didn't you make this thread like 3 days ago?
>>97175549The core concept is to sell product (and it sold pretty well), not if anyone played it. Especially not the grifters making money out of it
>>97175777Probably some variation of "Let's make hay while the sun shines".This game sold its entire print in a week, and thice as many pdf. Pure profit>b-but nobody plays it!Yes, and? How is that making the grifters any less rich and idiots any less gullible?I don't know what you find funny in this at all.
>>97175920>I don't know what you find funny in this at all.It's funny to see people I don't like get duped and make pathetic attempts to pretend they don't care that they were duped.
>>97175905>Take massive risk on starting your new game project>One to which you would have to commit>And risk loosing easy sponsorshipvs.>Make easy money on your own fan base>You don't have to commit to anything at all>Sponsorship money is still flowingI don't even consider this a choice, to be frank. It's a pure no-brainer. And it would be crazy if they tried to turn their 5 minutes of fame into anything else than a quick, guaranteed pay-off, rather than some pipe dream idea of dethroning DnD.They live off DnD, you moron.
>>97175924So you know someone who actually bought this game?See, because that's the funny part for me - this obvious grift sold out within 6 days, supposedly making fuckload of money... but nobody ever met anyone who bought it. And I'm willing to think this is a self-made grift, where the goal wasn't to reach sales, but to artificially boost your own image as best-selling creator. Buying 10k books of your own is a known grift scheme, Daniel patented it for TTRPG with his WFRP 2e clone, so there is a solid chance this game was bought by the CR people themselves, then net them back 1/3 of the money spend, but being flagged out as "best-seller"
>>97175935See, you act like it's a strict binary, but it wasn't. They DID make their own game and DID try playing it on stream at least once or twice as I recall. They just didn't didn't end up fully committing to it for CR4. There's a causal conundrum here, was it shit because they didn't commit or did they not commit because it was shit?>They live off DnD, you moron.They live off their IP, which is derived from DnD, but not inseparable. This is like saying Pathfinder could never make it on its own because why wouldn't you just keep playing DnD?
>>97176008clearly you haven't actually read it or you wouldn't be posing this "conundrum." anon, it's shit. >>97175905zero guarantee of a successful landing (or audience transfer) and they would have been immediately hamstrung by their own half-assed product. their whole deal is riding someone else's wave
all this talk of them not committing to daggerheart for campaign 4 when wotc probably paid a pretty big penny for them to keep playing 5e.
>>97175954It's funny either way. Either retards got tricked or shitical reddit wasted money.
>>97176045
>>97176036I know it's shit. The question I'm trying to get at is if they allowed the designers to fuck around and make a turd because they never gave a fuck to start with or because they thought they were cooking and then had to come crawling back to Daddy Hasbro once they realized it was shit. >zero guarantee of a successful landing (or audience transfer) As people have said earlier, all they had to do was make a reasonable 5e clone and they would've gotten away with it easily. Hell, even if they didn't give a fuck from the outset, it would've been a more sensible way to design it for the sake of selling it in the long-term. So there's some kind of hubris involved in the process in any case.
was this one of the games shat out during the 5e srd 'controversy' to try to capitalize on the 9999th time wotc fucked people over (but went back to them anyway a month later)or was it their other game, the globe-trotting not-coc game (that tells you not to explore or go anywhere because that's racist)I can't keep all this shit straight at all, sorry
>>97176095is getting paid an excuse?
>>97175908I played one session of it. Didn't care for it, went back to my own overly derivative homebrew.
>>97175759I knew it was a grift by their release launch party. It looked like no one wanted to be therehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doHJUIu07Hc
>>97176125obv I wasn't in the room but best I can figure is they really wanted to lean into the staged aspect with the fear and hope crap. hubris isn't incorrect per se, but I think it was more a lack of awareness. at no point do they seem to have stopped and said "let's look at this from 30,000 feet and see if this actually makes sense in context" and so what you end up with is a high profile heartbreaker. >>97176132my gut tells me that this was probably the case at some point but they lost interest
>>97175474Lol
>>97176132>(that tells you not to explore or go anywhere because that's racist)What
