I did, lol.
I was very quick when I posted that, and you didn't have all the links up yet.
Daggerheart captures the idea many new D&D players had when they started playing in the latter half of 5E's lifecycle. Having been designed by the company that created Critical Role, one of the larger drivers of D&D's growing popularity in the past decade, this is to be expected.
Generally, when you read RPGs, you can have an image of how it will play in your head, but I wouldn't put so much importance on the actual system for the outcome. People often get into intense flamewars about game editions and rules, when any specific system (in my experience) only accounts for so much for how a game will perform for any given table. Just as important, if not moreso, you should also consider the players, the game master, the story the table is trying to tell, and all the little things going on in the lives of the players at the time.
Picking the right system for the right group is important, but that requires some skill, and there's still no guarantee you'll get one outcome over another. That said, Daggerheart is good for tables that want to tell dynamic stories, but don't want to go too far away from modern WotC RPG design sensibilities (e.g., there are tiered dice outcomes without the procedural/structured systems of PBTA/FitD games, where that mechanic originates).
Because the rule says "regardless of the outcome", it means whatever would happen in the roll still happens, just that 1 Hope and 1 Fear are also generated; so if the player rolls with Fear, the GM still gets to make a GM move.
Another way to understand the move, is that you're paying 3 Hope to give another player 1 Hope, and the GM 1 Fear. This is useful since many of the Heretic's features are affected by how much Fear the GM has.
But, since the characters know that the house must play to 17 or higher it affects their choices, which in turn affects your strategy. What you're asking is similar to saying that players should be able to stop the flop at one card, it's a suggestion that might feel good, but has an affect on the psychology of the game, which would ruin it.
A lot of what characters will or won't hit on is not only based on the cards they draw, but also the flop. In fact, you can better play against them by tricking them into standing when they're below 17 and you have a decent flop. Some characters will also stand or hit if the flop is high compared to their hand.
The rules for the dealer aren't there for the players psychological benefit, though that is a great side-benefit, it's vital to good Blackjack strategy. If you're unhappy that you have to keep drawing cards, you should focus more on your manipulation strategy. If the flop is high, you should manipulate the gamblers into busting, since they'll lose as well.
Some of the review comments are further down, so I'll write this here for anyone newly coming here to check out the game:
Don't purchase this game, just wait until the final release. The current game is VERY alpha. There's also a lack of information on how some mechanics work, and for a roguelike it gets boring after about 5 runs.
Really wish this game was getting more updates.
It's great, but really needs just a little bit more polish to be astounding. At the higher levels of difficulty especially, there isn't much in the way of strategy, so much as just hoping you get lucky.
There are also certain builds and combinations that are outright broken, from both the player and enemy's perspective.