Shadowdark Finally Played Shadowdark

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The fact that a game is designed with a particular playstyle in mind is unconnected with whether or not "most players" actually want that out of that game.

 

[Flying Toaster]

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.

I had forgotten that it was just five 1st level characters, whereas OD&D parties were often twice that size or even larger. When I played B/X and AD&D we mostly played TSR modules and never used henchmen or hirelings, so we wouldn’t have dreamed of starting an adventure with fewer than 6 PCs, and more usually 8-10. Five characters sounds more like a 5E or Pathfinder party size. I am not actually sure what the recommended party size is for Shadowdark and other OSR games. And yes, the original version of Thracia was indeed designed for levels 2-6.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

Edit: Shadowdark, to its credit, provides rules for making combat more viable. It is obviously trying to appeal to a broader array of people than those who simply want to apply the 7 Maxims of OSR. Where I quibble with Shadowdark specifically is that its presentation of the rules is brief, often to a fault. While that's part of its allure to some, it's also confusing to those who expect a bit more description.

Why exactly do you think ways of overcoming obstacles without combat shouldn't be superior to conbat?

 

[TwoSix]

As someone who played that way back in the 1980s, that's a bit of modern mythology. While it's true that some groups did not play this way, it's false that no groups played this way.

Sure, but I think what we can generally accept is that play back then wasn't really animated by design principles as much as it was by experimentation. Which is exactly what would you expect from a game form that was still pretty novel!

Some groups played the game as a set of scenarios/puzzles to solve, others were trying out using the system to tell more detailed stories, and others were attempting to tinker with the system to add greater fidelity to their imagined settings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would argue that if that's truly the implication, the designer would be better served by not having a fighter class.

But without a fighter, what do you do when you inevitably fail to avoid combat?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

yeah, if it is designed to be played like that, then lead with this, instead of having people discover it over their first dozen TPKs

The DMs who ran Retreater's games don't seem to have read any play examples in the book. One of them -- the "do every dungeon room in numerical order" person -- may never have run an RPG at all.

I don't think you can take his crappy experiences as necessarily representative.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.
5e is more heroic than I would like, but this sounds like it way overshot in the other direction

Esp. with none of that being pointed out in the rules or reflected in adventures (by adventures providing / pointing out alternatives to a fight), or even practiced by (many / most) GMs

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

You do you, but you should note that 99% of the people in this thread are saying that Retreater's bad experience is largely due to inept DMs and not necessarily the game itself.

 

[overgeeked]

Sure, but I think what we can generally accept is that play back then wasn't really animated by design principles as much as it was by experimentation. Which is exactly what would you expect from a game form that was still pretty novel!

Some groups played the game as a set of scenarios/puzzles to solve, others were trying out using the system to tell more detailed stories, and others were attempting to tinker with the system to add greater fidelity to their imagined settings.

The principles of the OSR as written by Ben Milton, et al are new, sure. The mechanics that lead to those principles are not. All the mechanical hallmarks of OSR-style play exist in the early editions of D&D. You don't need a blog that says "Combat is a fail state" to recognize that PCs are fragile and monsters can easily kill you, so you should generally avoid combat and think of clever ways to win. Likewise with a bit of signposting traps and instant death. Likewise with skilled play and planning vs blindly charging into combat. Likewise monsters as puzzles given how many monsters had bizarre weaknesses combined with resistance or immunity.

 

[overgeeked]

The DMs who ran Retreater's games don't seem to have read any play examples in the book. One of them -- the "do every dungeon room in numerical order" person -- may never have run an RPG at all.

I don't think you can take his crappy experiences as necessarily representative.

Right? These read like the referee was running a parody game written by someone who hates Shadowdark rather than someone who actually tried to run it in good faith.

 

[mamba]

One of them -- the "do every dungeon room in numerical order" person -- may never have run an RPG at all.

I am not sure how that even works, aren’t the players deciding what room they go in next?

You do you, but you should note that 99% of the people in this thread are saying that Retreater's bad experience is largely due to inept DMs and not necessarily the game itself.

the ‘characters are inept and should have a 50% chance to be killed by one hit from a goblin’ sounds like the system to me, not just a bad DM