Shadowdark Finally Played Shadowdark

Do you really think everyone who's run SD without a solid grounding in the texts you mentioned has suffered "TPK after TPK"? Do you believe your personal experience with the game is "that" universal?
I think if they don't have a solid grounding, that you're going to have the experience I had at the convention. Maybe they watched a lot of YouTube videos and not read the books. But playing the game as written with the assumption of play it entails will lead to many character deaths.

I don't see how it's possible to play it with the probabilities of RAW to not end most combats with a TPK. Sure, if you avoid them you can live. With stealth or diplomacy, you can survive. But when rubber hits the road, I don't see how it's possible to survive with the abilities the game gives the characters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

But playing the game as written with the assumption of play it entails will lead to many character deaths.

This is where you get lost.

Sure, if you avoid them you can live. With stealth or diplomacy, you can survive.

Because THIS is the assumption of some of the play. You use stealth, you use diplomacy. You'll note that in the adventures by Arcane Library there are factions to interact with. You are not there to 'kill them all'.

Now obviously combat can, and likely will happen, but if you are just blithely running around oblivious to the clues and tells your DM is leaving (they do that right? like the book says?), making noise, crashing down doors, attacking everything in sight?

You deserve to die, because you are playing poorly.

Will characters die? Absolutely. You have single digit HP! Is every fight a TPK? Absolutely not.

I mean just be honest. You misrepresent the math, you misrepresent or misunderstand the game, you had trash tier DM's for your games who did not even play by the rules of the book and even a cursory reading of the book makes it clear, and you by your own admission do not even like OSR style games, with all the 'assumptions of play' which that style assumes.

I don't see how it's possible to survive with the abilities the game gives the characters.

And yet....many people are playing and enjoying the game.
 

you by your own admission do not even like OSR style games
I don't think I fully understood that until my string of bad sessions. I had a nostalgia for how I played old TSR D&D, but that's not what the OSR does. I'm guessing it's more in narrative games like Daggerheart. And honestly, those styles of play couldn't be more different.
oblivious to the clues and tells your DM is leaving (they do that right? like the book says?)
I have to say I've never had a character die in SD to anything that was telegraphed. It was all just monsters who "appeared" and couldn't be escaped, tricked, bribed, or sneaked past.
Or ... you literally can't go anywhere else, so I guess you quit the adventure?
there are factions to interact with.
My experience with factions are that you might avoid fighting one group, but the other group will still kill ya. You can't make friends with everyone. And if it were that kind of game, SD would be better suited by offering diplomacy rules instead of weapon charts.
You misrepresent the math
Regarding the spell failure, I attest that it's still too high. At 1st level, with an average wizard character with a 14 Int, you still have like a 45% fail rate. When in the other games it was modelled upon, you had a 0% fail rate to cast many spells. Even the ones that allowed saving throws, many enemies had like a 15% chance to save.
you misrepresent or misunderstand the game
You're right. I don't understand it. I think there should be more guidance for exploration and diplomacy than combat and combat stats for enemies.
you had trash tier DM's
Agreed.
And yet....many people are playing and enjoying the game.
I'd say that's due to avoiding interaction with the game: fudging, spending entire sessions shopping or talking in a tavern, coming up with plans that are so "genius" that a GM just handwaves the adventure. In those cases, I'd say people aren't even playing the game.
 

I don't think I fully understood that until my string of bad sessions. I had a nostalgia for how I played old TSR D&D, but that's not what the OSR does. I'm guessing it's more in narrative games like Daggerheart. And honestly, those styles of play couldn't be more different.

I thought the same, but after digging into Daggerheart a bit, I think its actually more OSR, than 5e is.
I have to say I've never had a character die in SD to anything that was telegraphed. It was all just monsters who "appeared" and couldn't be escaped, tricked, bribed, or sneaked past.
Or ... you literally can't go anywhere else, so I guess you quit the adventure?

Bad DMing for sure. Have you read the actual Arcane Library adventures?

My experience with factions are that you might avoid fighting one group, but the other group will still kill ya. You can't make friends with everyone. And if it were that kind of game, SD would be better suited by offering diplomacy rules instead of weapon charts.

Why do you need rules? "I want to make friends with this faction that hates this other faction." "OK, play it out." You do not need rules, you need a good DM.

Regarding the spell failure, I attest that it's still too high. At 1st level, with an average wizard character with a 14 Int, you still have like a 45% fail rate. When in the other games it was modelled upon, you had a 0% fail rate to cast many spells. Even the ones that allowed saving throws, many enemies had like a 15% chance to save.

A wizard character at level 1 with 14 Int.

Elf +1
Talent +1 (odds are).

You are now at +4. Its literally the truth. The basic math does not support you.

You're right. I don't understand it. I think there should be more guidance for exploration and diplomacy than combat and combat stats for enemies.

Cursed Scroll 4 has a bit more on Exploration as do I believe Scrolls 2 and 3, and diplomacy is coming I believe but again you dont need rules for that, you play the game with a good DM.

That said, you do not need more than the core book. Pages 90, 132 cover the basics.

I'd say that's due to avoiding interaction with the game: fudging, spending entire sessions shopping or talking in a tavern, coming up with plans that are so "genius" that a GM just handwaves the adventure. In those cases, I'd say people aren't even playing the game.

You would be wrong.
 

I don't think I fully understood that until my string of bad sessions. I had a nostalgia for how I played old TSR D&D, but that's not what the OSR does. I'm guessing it's more in narrative games like Daggerheart. And honestly, those styles of play couldn't be more different.
I can't say how you personally used to play TSR D&D. But OSE (Basic) for example is literally a cleaned up port of D&D B/X. So when you say things like this, it demonstrates a rather substantial disconnect on your part...
 
Last edited:



I'd say that's due to avoiding interaction with the game: fudging, spending entire sessions shopping or talking in a tavern, coming up with plans that are so "genius" that a GM just handwaves the adventure. In those cases, I'd say people aren't even playing the game.
I thought I was done with this thread but this is hilarious. You really think all the people who enjoy shadowdark are not actually playing the game, but just sitting around in a tavern? You really think the multitude of people enjoying this game actually not playing this is more probable than the simple explanation that you just had a bad experience due to a bad DM, misunderstanding of rules etc.?
 


That's because you can't run Shadowdark with Shadowdark alone. You need additional books to teach best practices. You need to read things like the Old School Primer, Principia Apocrypha.
Using the rules in the game, it's TPK after TPK. Using the adventures as written by Arcane Library, it's TPK after TPK. You have to house rule ... a lot.
You absolutely do not. Scribe and others have pointed out repeatedly in this thread that the GM advice you're asking for is literally in the GM book. Veldaren and Whizbang Dustyboots mentioned on page 2 of the thread that by the book Reaction rules there is less than a 50% chance of an encounter being immediately hostile.

Why do you keep making this false assertion?

That's undoubtedly part of SD's success- that Kelsey distilled that OSR DM advice so people don't have to reference the Principia and other sources. If none of the DMs you played with followed that advice or ran the game in accordance with the principles she lays out, that's fundamentally on them. I'm sorry you had three of them.

Regarding the spell failure, I attest that it's still too high. At 1st level, with an average wizard character with a 14 Int, you still have like a 45% fail rate.
This is a demonstrably false statement, and it's been made after the rules were already quoted showing its falsity, which is blowing my mind.

With a first level wizard character with a 14 Int, you have a 40% fail chance with a tier 1 spell (rolls of 1-8 on the d20) IF you choose not to play an elf or human and not counting your Talent roll(s).

If you're an elf you undoubtedly take +1 to casting rolls, so your failure chance is 35% BEFORE your first level Talent roll. Nearly twice as likely to succeed as to fail. At first level. And that Talent increases your casting roll by another +1 (either directly or by increasing your Int) or it gives you Advantage on one of your spells 30/36 times. 1/36 it gives you free magic item. 5/36 it gives you another spell.

If you're a human you get two Talent rolls at 1st level. So the most likely case for either a human or elf 1st level Wizard with a 14 Int is you have a 70% cast chance (21/36 talent rolls add +1 to cast), and if you don't, you almost certainly have 65% as well as Advantage on at least one spell (probably two if you took Magic Missile).

SD Wizard Talent chart.JPG

When in the other games it was modelled upon, you had a 0% fail rate to cast many spells. Even the ones that allowed saving throws, many enemies had like a 15% chance to save.
These are both objectively false statements, and they're both being made right after I quoted the actual numbers from B/X. 🤷‍♂️

Of the low level TSR D&D offensive spells, only Magic Missile and Sleep denied saves. And even the lowest level enemies* have a 25% chance to save- a 16 Save vs Spells. 25% chance of your one spell failing compared with less than 40% of each of your three spells failing = in aggregate, a SD 1st level Wizard does more on an average day, has LOWER odds of none of his spells working, than a 1st level TSR MU. Unless you take Sleep, of course (though Sleep doesn't work against undead, and there's strong odds you hold it in reserve and don't use it unless you run into a particularly dangerous encounter). Magic Missile is guaranteed to do something, but you can also roll badly on damage and fail to kill a kill a single orc. The 25% chance of an Orc making its save against Charm Person is smaller than the 33% chance that you roll a 1 or 2 for damage with MM and do 2-3 points.

*(Edit: Correction. A Goblin or Kobold only saves as Normal Man, not Fighter 1, so it only has a 15% chance to save (18). Mea culpa. An Orc or Hobgoblin gets the 16.)
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top