Shadowdark Finally Played Shadowdark

[Bill Zebub]

Which I'm fine with as a free-form exercise, but the game is also about combat. That's what the rules define.

Are you suggesting they are two separate things? Like, free-form exercise ends when combat starts?

 

[Bill Zebub]

it’s not the rules light I was commenting on but that supposedly the characters should be weak, below average, sucking at things and dying like flies.

"Not superheroes" does not mean "weak, below average, sucking at things and dying like flies."

I always felt SD was too sparse for what I am looking for so did not take a closer look, but it always kinda kept showing up in the periphery. This thread makes it very clear that I should ignore it altogether

Yup, I think you have to be interested in giving the playstyle a shot for it to be successful. SD is probably not your game. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[TiQuinn]

Are you suggesting they are two separate things? Like, free-form exercise ends when combat starts?

No, I'm saying that I get that the rules don't cover all situations of the game to allow creativity, but the game rules do cover combat and the specific abilities you have when in combat. I can't just make up a spell on the fly that I don't have - the spells I have are part of the rules.

I'm pushing back on this idea that all OSR games are about combat avoidance.

 

[mamba]

"Not superheroes" does not mean "weak, below average, sucking at things and dying like flies."

but this very much sounded like it

2) Your characters are supposed to be average or even a bit weak. You're supposed to feel outmatched compared to monsters. You're not a Hero.

4) 1HD monsters are supposed to have a 50/50 shot of their damage roll killing you. You're not a Hero.
5) You're not supposed to have a reasonable chance for a check - the gameplay purpose is to AVOID ROLLING. Don't leave things up to luck - think outside the box.

which is what I replied to

 

[Retros_x]

Combat is a fail state is like saying this game that I wrote rules for is 80% dedicated to the implementation of that fail state. What the rules do not cover is typically the remaining 20% which is left entirely up to the discretion of the GM and the players to define whether or not their course of action is going to reach that fail state or not.

Of course the rules are 80% about that fail state, because that is when your characters die. You want to have precise rules here. The foul rules of basketball are quite precise, that doesn't mean the game is about fouling the other players, but these are the moments of contention.

I find that to be backasswards as a general principle. There is nothing wrong with avoiding combat by finding a sneaky approach, or a diplomatic approach, or a puzzle solving approach, but these should not be immediately superior to the combat approach. They should simply be equal approaches. A fail state can occur in all of them.

Ok, but this is not just Shadowdark but most modern OSR games. If these approaches would be equal - why would you use them instead of combat? And what is the fail state of the other approaches if not combat? But anyway, that is the principle of most modern OSR games - combat is deadly and thus to be avoided. If you want to play a "combat as sport" game with "balanced" encounters were you are supposed to win most encounters. Thats not the right game for you. But I don't like it when people dismiss it as a bad design/principle.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm pushing back on this idea that all OSR games are about combat avoidance.

Yeah, again, I think that idea has been both exaggerated and misconstrued. Of course combat is a huge part of OSR. It's just that the goal is to minimize simply taking turns rolling dice with monsters and trusting RNG to save you. And for that to work, the players have to trust the GM to adjudicate for the fun of the whole table.

Neither of those things are assumed by a lot of 5e players.

 

[Retros_x]

I'm pushing back on this idea that all OSR games are about combat avoidance.

Avoidance or trying to get in advantageous situation is exactly that. Its stated by most OSR creators in their blogs and products. Here an excerpt from Shadowdark: "Battles are fast and deadly. Being clever is crucial for survival."

The implication is clear: If you run into every combat, you will die.

 

[Mannahnin]

Deconstructing My Bad Time
Let's accept the core concepts of Shadowdark. Darkness matters. It's designed to be quick and streamlined. It needs to feel like D&D. All this I'm good with.
1) A player needs to trust that they can successfully cast a spell at least one time. (Fixed in houserules.)
2) Die rolling ability scores as presented takes too long to produce an acceptable character. The 3d6 method of the past does not work in "d20 + modifier" systems. (It worked in old-school games because ability scores weren't as tied to your character's role in the party. It might've granted a slight edge to attack or damage, an XP bonus, or an extra language slot.) Shadowdark should either have a Standard Array and/or present die rolling methods that have a statistical likelihood to create characters that aren't going to be trashed (per the rules).
3) Dungeon turns and constant Initiative are immersion breaking and take too long.
4) HP and damage are out of whack. Yes, this is a compatibility issue with old D&D, but it should change. 1HD monsters shouldn't have a 50/50 chance to kill a PC with one hit in a dungeon adventure where you face swarms of them AND you can't reasonably avoid combat. (If you open a door to a 30 X 30 room and see the monsters, they see you, you can't avoid them, you can't run away because they have the same - or better - speed.)
5) The DCs of Shadowdark are mathematically wrong if players should have a reasonable chance of success for mundane tasks. An Easy DC 9 is a 60% chance of success. You only have a 37.5% chance to have rolled 12 or higher on your 3d6 ability score. So there's a slight chance that you have better than a 60% chance of success to achieve an "Easy" success. If we look at a lowly kobold's Armor Class [13] as a DC skill check, it's on the high end of a Normal check. You have a less than average chance to hit, even assuming you might have a +1 or +2 to hit.
6) Levelling up is disappointing. You get a handful of HP (average is 2-4) that don't really matter or add to survivability in a substantial way. You might get to roll on a chart that could make you 5% better at something you could already do. Assuming you're not a spellcaster, you don't unlock special capstone abilities at higher levels. (Extra attacks for a fighter, for example.)

Sorry to hear that none of your DMs knew the way to make it work. :/

1. That perfectly cromulent house rule does fix this issue, though honestly I don't think it's needed. Priests start with two spells and wizards start with three. In general the odds that you never get a spell off are comparable to or lower than you cast your one (or zero) spell for the day in B/X and the enemy makes their save. Luck tokens also substantially mitigate spell failure. Your third level Wizard knew 5 spells, had better than 50/50 odds to cast, and on average talent rolls (or if he just chose Magic Missile as one) he probably had Advantage to cast at least one of them.

2. This is a reasonably common complaint in 3d6 down the line systems. I had one player in my longterm 5 Torches Deep game need to roll something like 4 or 5 sets because he just rolled terribly a few times. My usual fix is the "mirror/flip" option. Have players roll 3d6 down the line, but they may optionally subtract every score, in order, from 21. This completely eliminates ever needing to roll a second set. It does inflate the average a bit, makes very low scores rarer and high ones substantially more common, but I don't mind that.

3) Yeah, strictly adhering to turn order when it slows the game is bad GMing. The point is to make sure the spotlight is shared and it's not just one or two talkative people constantly driving.

4. I agree with your two caveats. Which means the adventure shouldn't have swarms of monsters if the PCs have no alternative ways to deal with them, and the GM should be using the reaction rules (as Kelsey models in her APs). I can also get behind max HP at first level to give a little padding, but the death rules for SD are more forgiving than, say, baseline B/X, so going to zero HP also isn't automatic death.

5. Mundane tasks you shouldn't normally be rolling for.

SD GM quickstart page 7:
WHAT TO DO
Describe what the characters newly perceive, and then let the players respond to that with actions. Call for checks when those actions require skill. Then start again from the top!

SD GM Quickstart page 12:

CHECKS
The characters automatically succeed at what they are trained to do. Only use checks when there is time pressure and failure has dire consequences.

6. This is a matter of taste, and totally understandable if it's not to yours. Doing it this way deliberately keeps the power curve flatter and characters fragile enough at high levels that fear remains, and they can't be as cavalier about damage and danger as higher level PCs are in editions with more HP inflation.

Retreater’s experience of Shadowdark reminds me of something I read on The Alexandrian blog. Justin Alexander ran an OD&D Caverns of Thracia campaign in order to test out how the game played RAW. The 3d6-down-the-line method produced such poor characters that after several TPKs the players no longer bothered to give them unique names, instead using designations like “Bob the Dwarf III”. They measured progress in terms of how much farther they could get into the dungeon before the inevitable TPK, almost like a Roguelike computer game. It sounded excruciating to me.

While CoT is a gold classic, it is not actually designed for a 1st level party, never mind one of only 5 characters like Justin's group had. A number of their problems with the module derive from playing it much more on hard mode than it was meant to be. 2nd or 3rd level would be more appropriate, and usually a group of twice that many characters (whether all PCs or a mix of PCs and hirelings).

That was also back in 2009 and Justin deliberately disregarded a number of OSR best practices which were already known even then, in the name of trying to make his experiment fit the test conditions he arbitrarily decided to employ, at the expense of fun and playability.

It’s very important for OSR style play (including Shadowdark) to emphasize that the point of play is to solve environmental puzzles. Rooms with monsters are simply another kind of puzzle to solve.

Any party that gets into head-to-head combat with a monster group without some kind of setup to give them advantage is in a fail state. Immediate combat is going to give a coin-flip chance of a TPK.

Combat is considered a fail state in OSR, it happens when your other approaches failed. You tried to instigate a melee between the arguing lizardmen but they saw through your manipulations and attack. Or you tried to sneak around them, but they heard something came over to investigate. When they questioned you they realized you came with ill intent to rob them and they attack you. Combat is dangerous and thus to be avoided. If it erupts, you did fail some other attempt in most cases.

There are whole classes dedicated to combat. A large part of the rules are about fighting or what happens when you fight.

This combat is a fail state stuff ignores the fact that combat is a large part of what players of virtually any generation want in a fantasy game. Not 100% of the time, and not all players, certainly, but I’d hazard to guess that most want combat at some point as part of dungeoning and dragoning or shadowdarking.

"Combat is a Fail State" is a classic maxim of the OSR which was never meant to be taken 100% literally. Gus wrote a good analysis and explication of it on his blog, along with six other major OSR maxims. Some combat is expected. Trying other approaches before fighting where possible and using smart tactics to stack the odds in your favor are also expected.

7 Maxims of the OSR

Back in the aughts and the 2010’s, a decade ago now, there was a movement in older RPGs that I was part of - the “ Old School Renaissance ” ...

alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com

 

[Bill Zebub]

but this very much sounded like it


which is what I replied to

Yeah that is comparing PCs to monsters, not to other people.

In how many great fantasy stories is the 'hero' actually physically superior to the monsters, as opposed to more clever and more prepared?

 

[TiQuinn]

Of course the rules are 80% about that fail state, because that is when your characters die. You want to have precise rules here. The foul rules of basketball are quite precise, that doesn't mean the game is about fouling the other players, but these are the moments of contention.

Foul rules are about what is an allowed or disallowed thing to do in the game. That is not the same thing.

Ok, but this is not just Shadowdark but most modern OSR games. If these approaches would be equal - why would you use them instead of combat? And what is the fail state of the other approaches if not combat? But anyway, that is the principle of most modern OSR games - combat is deadly and thus to be avoided. If you want to play a "combat as sport" game with "balanced" encounters were you are supposed to win most encounters. Thats not the right game for you. But I don't like it when people dismiss it as a bad design/principle.

So in order to play Shadowdark do I need a primer on what most modern OSR games do? Has someone contacted Kelsey Dionne to say she should really include a citation of the 7 maxims on OSR play? Maybe there should be an OSR license that includes that text if all OSR games agree on this point?