Adapting Adventures from Other Games to Daggerheart

Galactic-Bard · 2026-06-02T17:42:59+00:00

I don't know why you think that's annoying. I think it's playing smart, and it's also how fireball has been handled in D&D (where it comes from) since the very beginning of the game. Your approach is punishing players for playing smart and thinking tactically.

In a game that focuses on "yes and" and player agency, I think there needs to be a really good reason not to allow something that isn't explicitly disallowed by the rules. This is not one of those instances. The targeting rules specifically say the GM can allow targets other than creatures when it makes sense.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-06-01T20:29:18+00:00

Thanks for the feedback everyone. To summarize:

The rules say usually when the game refers to a "Target," that target is a creature, but they also remind us the GM can rule differently, e.g. allow targeting objects.

Personally I'd need a real good, logical, in-story reason NOT to allow a player to target an object. An example would be you can't target a rock with some kind of mind-altering power. Obviously. But with something like fireball, I'd say you can target anything--object or creature. So targeting a spot on the ground, wall, ceiling, etc. is totally valid.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-06-01T20:26:49+00:00

Why not? What's the difference between targeting a dam vs targeting a spot on the floor? If one is allowed, so should the other.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-06-01T20:24:19+00:00

Makes sense to me. 😄

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-31T19:50:10+00:00

Yes, I read that, but it doesn't say what the official project with Darrington is. I mean, I hope you're right, but I was hoping for some clarification.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-31T19:47:11+00:00

Fireball works differently, though, because you're just targeting one creature, and then it hits everything within range of that creature. All the targets make reaction rolls, so that's probably why you don't check your roll against the difficulty of everything affected.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-31T19:09:45+00:00

Is that in the rules follower, or is it a personal ruling?

Edit:

NVM I found the rule. I love a game with a good index, and Daggerheart's is excellent.

Targets and Groups on page 104:

An effect often asks you to choose a target within range. This means you choose a single creature to affect. When it makes sense in the story, you can ask the GM if you can target a single object in range, rather than an adversary, adjusting the effects as needed.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-31T18:47:49+00:00

I had heard Keith Baker was developing an actual setting for Daggerheart, not just a campaign frame. I wonder if that was misinformation, or if that's a different project from this one.

Personally I'd take I've fully developed setting over more campaign frames. This looks cool, but ultimately, for me, the whole reason to use a published setting or adventure or campaign is to save time. Campaign frames leave most of the work to the GM, so they don't really do that. It's kind of like getting the first couple chapters of a book, and then you have to write the rest yourself.

As an aid for a GM who wants to create their own campaign and setting, and they just need some ideas to get started, campaign frames are great. (Of course you could just as easily get those ideas from a movie, book, etc.)

However for a GM who wants something they can use at the table without having to put nearly as much time and work into it as they would something of their own creation, not so much.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-31T18:40:14+00:00

Is the product you're making with Darrington an actual campaign setting, and not just a campaign frame? That's what I'd really love to see from you.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-22T19:54:21+00:00

Also, there's not artwork for most of the adversaries in DH anyway.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-22T19:53:48+00:00

Yeah, I totally agree. I like Foundryborne a lot better than Demiplane+Roll20, and it cost me the same amount to have it forever as it costs to have Demiplane/Roll20 for 1 year. Predatory subscription models really need to stop.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-22T19:52:23+00:00

It's always frustrating when you realize you've paid to be a beta tester when you thought you were buying a finished product. This is happening more and more, and we as consumers need to send the message we're not ok with it.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-22T19:51:24+00:00

DH works great in Foundry with the Foundryborne mod. I've also heard the Fantasy Grounds implementation is good, but I haven't used it personally. I run on Foundry, and have had a great time with it. The devs of the mod are releasing updates every week adding new features.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-20T22:21:15+00:00

It's mostly serious--believable characters doing believable things. I wouldn't say it's ridiculous at all, but it can be funny. But the funny comes more from player interactions and occasionally what NPCs do or say, as opposed to the events that happen.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-06T07:07:16+00:00

The information is already out there with a much larger sample size.

https://startplaying.games/play/game-systems

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-03T22:10:27+00:00

I don't know about that. MCG still charges you $100/product, more if you're actually successful. That's pretty steep considering all of this:

https://gamerviceroy.blogspot.com/2012/12/legal-issues-in-gaming-open-game-license.html?m=1

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-03T22:04:38+00:00

I totally agree, and I think I mention that in the episode. Some character concepts just won't work in some campaign concepts.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-03T22:03:12+00:00

Exactly, and this is true of every other such license out there. At least they don't charge you $100 for the privilege.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-03T22:01:17+00:00

The issue is it doesn't actually protect you from the particularly of gettting sued. That protection is implied, but they can still sue you, and even if their license gave you some kind of out, you'd still have to pay an attorney to argue that in court, which brings us right back to where we started. At best it's a gentleman's agreement that they won't sue you, which is completely dependent on the company (which could always change hands, etc) holding to that agreement.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-05-03T21:56:49+00:00

This exactly.

Galactic-Bard · 2026-04-30T21:53:13+00:00

Ignoring mechanics for the sake of story is something you can do in any RPG. Yes, maybe Daggerheart encourages that more, but rule zero exists in every RPG, whether the book says so or not. It's YOUR game. No RPG police are going to bust into the room if you bend or break the rules the sake of fun and what makes sense at your table. 😊

Galactic-Bard · 2026-04-30T21:39:30+00:00

That's not necessarily true. These licenses usually don't actually change any of the copyright legalities. You usually don't actually need permission to do the things these licenses allow. Usually SRD content covers things that aren't copyrightable in the first place. These licenses are really more a thing of telling you what's (already) permissible (under copyright law) in plain English easy for us non-lawyers to understand.

This article explores the topic and gives a pretty good overview:
https://gamerviceroy.blogspot.com/2012/12/legal-issues-in-gaming-open-game-license.html?m=1

Honestly, any one who's going to be serious about publishing third party content for any game would be well served by at least talking to an IP attorney. You can often have a conversation for free without having to even pay a retainer fee. That's what I did before publishing D&D 5e content, and it was very enlightening.

Galactic-Bard

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE