Shadowdark Finally Played Shadowdark

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I try to talk these games up at every opportunity. It's a shame they aren't more well-known.

I can only assume the creators just want this to be a fun hobby for them, but not take the extra jump to make them a bigger deal. They're incredible, though, and the creators are so prolific.

 

[TwoSix]

I can only assume the creators just want this to be a fun hobby for them, but not take the extra jump to make them a bigger deal. They're incredible, though, and the creators are so prolific.

Marrying the "young kids just starting to adventure" with the "develop your starting abilities randomly with story hooks" ideas to a light 5e-derived engine is one of my dream concepts.

 

[Scribe]

All spells have like a 50/50 chance of not working each time you cast them.

Why even say something that is demonstrably false?

 

[Retreater]

Please stop saying that. It's not true. Spellcasting success rates are dependent on your casting stat. And some spells also are cast with advantage by default and other spells can be cast with advantage based on talent rolls.

It's true and I have the receipts.
The DC to cast is 10+spell level, so for a 1st level spell that's a default 50/50 if you get no bonuses.
But yes, you get to add your ability modifier. You get a +1 if you roll 12 on 3d6. That's a 12% chance of having +1. What about 14 on 3d6 - that's 7% chance to be +2. Those aren't great odds to balance a game system on.
You have advantage to cast Magic Missile - so better odds there. But Magic Missile isn't going to save your bacon.
After leveling up, you have a chance to get +1 to casting checks or advantage on casting a spell you pick, but even then the spellcasting isn't what I'd call reliable.

 

[Scribe]

It's true and I have the receipts.
The DC to cast is 10+spell level, so for a 1st level spell that's a default 50/50 if you get no bonuses.
But yes, you get to add your ability modifier. You get a +1 if you roll 12 on 3d6. That's a 12% chance of having +1. What about 14 on 3d6 - that's 7% chance to be +2. Those aren't great odds to balance a game system on.
You have advantage to cast Magic Missile - so better odds there. But Magic Missile isn't going to save your bacon.
After leveling up, you have a chance to get +1 to casting checks or advantage on casting a spell you pick, but even then the spellcasting isn't what I'd call reliable.

You get your talent at level 1 as well, and if you look at the Wizard talents, and compare the range of results, odds are pretty good you are not at 50/50.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Marrying the "young kids just starting to adventure" with the "develop your starting abilities randomly with story hooks" ideas to a light 5e-derived engine is one of my dream concepts.

Yeah, I loved AD&D, but if I could sand that stuff off and replace it with a modern d20 engine -- which wouldn't take a lot, honestly -- the Flatland games would be basically perfect.

Alternately, if they could take their playbooks and threat packs and make them more generic for use in more OSR games, that would also be huge. I have used the Grizzled Adventurers adventure maker when I've been short on time for a Shadowdark game, and it's run great.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

even then the spellcasting isn't what I'd call reliable.

No, it's not. Both Shadowdark and DCC use spellcasting checks to trade "I can for sure cast this once" for "I can push my luck and potentially cast this many times or zero times."

Either way, the end result is that low level wizards in OSR games tend to sit on their spells until they have no other choice but to cast.

It's an attempt to keep magic limited and rare.

I love magic myself -- I prefer playing wizards -- but if spellcasting rolls are a dealbreaker, absolutely don't play DCC or Shadowdark.

Do see my above post about the Flatland Games RPGs, which have spellcasting mostly like AD&D, plus cantrips.

 

[nevin]

Personally I wish more magic in D&D-style games was less reliable (but still powerful).

Problem with that is how do you square player ability to get things done with random losses of resources. Though I think taking certain spells out of per round casting and making them rituals that are either unreliable or reliant on powers who may not be ok with what you are doing or simply have their own needs and goals that might conflict or necessitate negotiation could be a way to do it. I don't think I'd be ok with just magic across the board being that unreliable. You might as well play paranoia using R&D tech. Ok for a one or two shot game but then it gets tedious.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Problem with that is how do you square player ability to get things done with random losses of resources. Though I think taking certain spells out of per round casting and making them rituals that are either unreliable or reliant on powers who may not be ok with what you are doing or simply have their own needs and goals that might conflict or necessitate negotiation could be a way to do it. I don't think I'd be ok with just magic across the board being that unreliable. You might as well play paranoia using R&D tech. Ok for a one or two shot game but then it gets tedious.

You make sure magic isn't the only way to solve a problem.

 

[Retreater]

Yeah, I think it's safe to say Shadowdark isn't for me. In fact, I'd say that the entire OSR isn't for me after many years of trying to make it fit to get the feel of what was my nostalgic D&D. That's probably because we fudged so much and put so much plot armor on the heroes that they were like Iron Man. This is probably why I've struggled with 5E as well, since it has a toe in the OSR.
We had stories and legends. We had high stakes narrative scenes and intriguing mysteries. We didn't have dungeoncrawls or hexploration.
As I'm exploring other systems like Wildsea and Daggerheart, I'm starting to think that they're closer to how I played in the 1990s. (Even if the systems and worlds look different.)
We built the worlds together. We shaped conflict based around the character backstory. The DM was a fan of the characters, not a neutral referee (and certainly not an antagonist).