How would YOU change Shadowdark?

[Reynard]

See I don’t think k it works that way. So if f the thief is a halfling they can turn invisible and then backstab. Thief has a smoke bomb and turn after they sneak attack. It is somewhat vague and Kelsey has had to clarify it as the book is vague

You are making it more complicated than it needs to be. this is not a game designed with granular rules and explanations for every circumstance. It is the GM's job to answer questions like "Can I backstab." All the GM has to do is look at the circumstances in the moment and make a ruling.

 

[TwoSix]

I guess my point is if ability scores are de-emphasized, what does it matter if they come from standard array?

Some people really like the idea of rolling randomly and seeing what sort of character they get, some people really hate it.

A standard array lowers the amount of randomness in character creation.

 

[aiouh]

Wow. Being able to choose what you want to play with your limited game time sounds horrible.

Some people like that and SD is designed to scratch that itch. I'm not saying its bad or the wrong way to have fun, it's just not how the rules intend you to create a character.

I've played with groups that also think the character creation process of the already considered light 5E14 is a horrible way to spend their free time. Its a matter of preference.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I just realized that, even after running it, that monsters have no ST. So they dropped monster saves and replaced it with spellcasting checks? That's bad, bad design. I knew the checks for casting punished the casters, but now it gets a clearer. This seems almost as if they didn't want magic in the game at all, but then came up with this dog-water magic system during the latter phases of development. THAT'S why it didn't make sense compared to B/X and 5e.

For somebody with an avatar named "Theory of Games" and not "Opinion of Games" this post seems light on game theory and heavy on opinion. Why exactly is it "bad, bad design"? What makes it a "dog-water magic system"?

One potential argument would be to compare spellcasting to non-spellcasting, e.g., "By gating spellcasting success behind a caster roll rather than a target saving throw, it reduces the success rate low, compared to non-magic actions. For example....(insert actual game math illustrating the point)." If you have such an analysis I would be interested in seeing that.

Alternately, you might have compared it to spellcasting in other games and argued that when you math out success rates, the number of spells per day that casters get is too low to be fun (compared to some other game system you want to use as a baseline). But if you were to do that, you would find that virtually all Shadowdark casters (except very low level ones who roll terrible stats) get more spells on average compared to D&D casters. And...here's the kicker...that's before you even factor in missed attack rolls or passed saving throws in D&D.

Now, maybe you just don't like systems where spellcasting checks are required. That somehow even if a spell misses its target it still feels like you at least cast a spell, and so you'd rather have the check come after the cast instead of before. And that's fine. We all have our preferences. But if that's the case maybe you should express it as your preference, and not as a fact of good/bad design?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm sorry, but flat out saying that magic is being nerfed out of the game is nonsense, a lvl 1 Wizard gets three level 1 spells and will be on average >50% to cast it and getting to cast it again.

How many spells and how many usages does a lvl 1 magic-user get in ODND 1E B/X and 2E?

And...as I just noted above...those magic-users might STILL see their spells miss or be resisted, wasting their (fewer) slots.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I guess my point is if ability scores are de-emphasized, what does it matter if they come from standard array?

My history with D&D (when I'm a player) has always very much been one where I come up with a character concept and then "build" it to that concept, setting ability scores and choosing race/background/class/skills etc. to match that concept.

And I do that in conjunction with the rest of the group. Who is playing what? What else do we need? What roles aren't covered?

Shadowdark unfolds a little differently. To quote a friend of my 11-year-old, "You git what you git and you don't throw a fit." You get this array of numbers and think, "What on earth can I do with that!?!?!" And so you end up with a Wizard who is actually pretty deadly with a staff. Or a Fighter who is as good (or better...for now) at talking than fighting.

And then you extrapolate that across the party, and you find that instead of a finely-tuned commando team, you have a ragtag group of questionable heroes.

And here's the thing: I think partly because of that, when we (shifting to first person to emphasize that this is my experience, not necessarily yours)...when we come across a challenge, we are more likely to think "off the character sheet" in finding solutions. Which, really, is a big part of the gameplay aesthetic Shadowdark aims for.

So it all fits together.

Now, maybe that's not your style. Maybe you are perfectly happy with the (current) D&D experience, and you want to implement the same playstyle in a different system. If so, I sort of question why you would choose Shadowdark instead of just continuing to play D&D. (The artwork? That would make perfect sense, actually.). But, hey, you do you!

 

[Bill Zebub]

In a white room fight without improvisation, the goblins are aware of the Thief. The Thief doesn't get to sneak off or backstab.

How do Penn & Teller, on a stage in front of a live audience, with hundreds/thousands of eyes on them, make something disappear?

It's not possible, I tell you!

 

[Reynard]

My history with D&D (when I'm a player) has always very much been one where I come up with a character concept and then "build" it to that concept, setting ability scores and choosing race/background/class/skills etc. to match that concept.

And I do that in conjunction with the rest of the group. Who is playing what? What else do we need? What roles aren't covered?

Shadowdark unfolds a little differently. To quote a friend of my 11-year-old, "You git what you git and you don't throw a fit." You get this array of numbers and think, "What on earth can I do with that!?!?!" And so you end up with a Wizard who is actually pretty deadly with a staff. Or a Fighter who is as good (or better...for now) at talking than fighting.

And then you extrapolate that across the party, and you find that instead of a finely-tuned commando team, you have a ragtag group of questionable heroes.

And here's the thing: I think partly because of that, when we (shifting to first person to emphasize that this is my experience, not necessarily yours)...when we come across a challenge, we are more likely to think "off the character sheet" in finding solutions. Which, really, is a big part of the gameplay aesthetic Shadowdark aims for.

So it all fits together.

Now, maybe that's not your style. Maybe you are perfectly happy with the (current) D&D experience, and you want to implement the same playstyle in a different system. If so, I sort of question why you would choose Shadowdark instead of just continuing to play D&D. (The artwork? That would make perfect sense, actually.). But, hey, you do you!

I think it is a little much to suggest that Shadowdark just doesn't work right if you let people choose their stats and determine what they want to play. That is just demonstrably not true. For cons, I randomly rolled a bunch of pregens using shadowdarklings.net, and then let the players choose from among those pregens. it worked fine over the course of a 4 session con-campaign. i let the players in my home game roll Dragonbane style. it worked fine for the course of a campaign. Players don't suddenly forget how to "player skill" because they got to choose their class.

 

[Aldarc]

Some people like that and SD is designed to scratch that itch. I'm not saying its bad or the wrong way to have fun, it's just not how the rules intend you to create a character.

I've played with groups that also think the character creation process of the already considered light 5E14 is a horrible way to spend their free time. Its a matter of preference.

It’s also a thread where people are talking about what they would change about Shadowdark, which may involve changing the design intent or decisions of the game.

 

[Theory of Games]

For somebody with an avatar named "Theory of Games" and not "Opinion of Games" this post seems light on game theory and heavy on opinion. Why exactly is it "bad, bad design"? What makes it a "dog-water magic system"?

One potential argument would be, "By gating spellcasting success behind a caster roll rather than a target saving throw, it reduces the success rate low, compared to non-magic actions. For example....(insert actual game math illustrating the point)." If you have such an analysis I would be interested in seeing that.

Alternately, you might have argued that when you math out success rates, the number of spells per day that casters get is too low to be fun (compared to some other game system you ant to use as a baseline). But if you were to do that, you would find that virtually all Shadowdark casters (except very low level ones who roll terrible stats) get more spells on average compared to D&D casters. And...here's the kicker...that's before you even factor in missed attack rolls or passed saving throws in D&D.

Now, maybe you just don't like systems where spellcasting checks are required. That somehow even if a spell misses its target it still feels like you at least cast a spell, and so you'd rather have the check come after the cast instead of before. And that's fine. We all have our preferences. But if that's the case maybe you should express it as your preference, and not as a fact of good/bad design?

But it IS bad design to make a ttrpg "like D&D" and not only drop Vancian magic, but create this lopsided "roll a spell check that's really a saving throw" system that contributes absolutely nothing to the fiction. It's just mechanical and bad mechanics at that. Compared to Vancian (which I hate), GURPS Magic, Ars Magica, or even MtA, Shadowdark is counter-intuitive and lazy and was most probably a last-minute add to a ttrpgs that was intended to be magic-less. And if you can't understand why rolling for spells is dumb:

Thread 'Spellcasting - why no skill check?'

Aug 6, 2018

Something has been bugging me a bit.

Why is spell-casting not a standard skill check in d&d 5e? Everything else is.

- Attack a monster. Melee skill check.

- Fire a bow. Ranged skill check.

- Jump/sprint. Strength skill check.

- Survive near death. Constitution skill check.

- Survive in nature. Wisdom skill check.

- Any sophisticated scholarly or intellectual activity - Intelligence skill check.

Spellcasting is about as difficult as it gets. Whether there are incantations and somatic movements, the prayers offered or material sacrifice. Tossing fireballs - no check in the middle of...

• Dispater
• Replies: 60
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons