Shadowdark Finally Played Shadowdark


log in or register to remove this ad

Sure, you can sneak past the bandits on the road who have prepared an ambush. But the 10 rooms of identical goblins in a classic dungeon of 10' corridors that go into 30 x 30 rooms? You're going to get caught by one of them - and you will die.
Modern OSR stuff doesn't tend to have those, which undercuts the whole "Old School Revival" aspect. In fact, if you listen to Between Two Cairns -- which I find a lot of fun, even if I'm never going to run, say, Into the Odd -- you hear them specifically complaining about old school monster hotels.

EDIT: Today's Questing Beast newsletter includes a review that specifically complains about the old school nature of Barrowmaze, which came out in 2015. The state of the art has definitely moved forward since 1E days.
 
Last edited:

Is it fun to turn the game into a "mother, may I?" with the GM?
This is a real "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question.

I don't think that OSR play requires any sort of "mother, may I" play.

But if you're uncomfortable with "rulings, not rules" as an ethos, then yeah, OSR and lighter RPGs generally are not going to be your cup of tea. For one thing, they require a lot of DM trust and the universe seems to be sending you untrustworthy ones.
 

I've consumed a lot of the OSR media out there. I've read the Alexandrian blog (and Justin Alexander's book). I've read and watched Ben Milton (Questing Beast). I've read Matt Finch.
The concepts of the OSR aren't new to me. But they get to be tedious, and I find them impractical.
Sure, you can sneak past the bandits on the road who have prepared an ambush. But the 10 rooms of identical goblins in a classic dungeon of 10' corridors that go into 30 x 30 rooms? You're going to get caught by one of them - and you will die.
And is it fun to sneak past all the fights, avoid all the combats (and probably also a good amount of the treasure/XP)? Is it fun to ignore the majority of your class abilities and the rules of the game you just paid $60 to play? Is it fun to turn the game into a "mother, may I?" with the GM?
You don’t tend to see that kind of design (room after room of goblins) in OSR game design anymore - mostly older adventures. Also avoiding combat is supposed to come with its own rewards, I.E. you don’t get XP for just killing the monsters.

The Mother May I situation - I personally think that good adventure design should pose reasonable solutions and not be completely free form, but also allow for stuff that’s outside the box. Yes, Mother May I does mean you are trusting the GM to adjudicate the game; that is the social contract you’re signing up for in that game, and it can certainly be abused. But you can find abuse in games with hard and fast rules as well such as rules lawyering.
 


And is it fun to sneak past all the fights, avoid all the combats (and probably also a good amount of the treasure/XP)? Is it fun to ignore the majority of your class abilities and the rules of the game you just paid $60 to play? Is it fun to turn the game into a "mother, may I?" with the GM?

Yes. All you are saying is you didn't know what you were getting, and you are not interested in the OSR.

You are looking for 4e, Daggerheart, 5e, maybe Draw Steel.
 

"10 rooms of identical goblins" isn't a recognizable description of any old module I can think of. I guess it's a hyperbolic description of... maybe B2? The lethality of which if played naively/hack & slash has been widely discussed for years.
 

And is it fun to sneak past all the fights, avoid all the combats (and probably also a good amount of the treasure/XP)? Is it fun to ignore the majority of your class abilities and the rules of the game you just paid $60 to play? Is it fun to turn the game into a "mother, may I?" with the GM?
Sometimes, yes.

Not all the time, of course, but it's silly to think anyone can find one game that perfectly serves all of their needs. You play the game that's in front of you, and you try to play it with the mentality it's meant to be played with.
 

I think the issue here, and its likely the last time I post in this thread.

Player expectation is wrong for what the game provides.
Player playstyle preference is not a match for what the game provides.
Player experience was influenced by DM's who either were not good, or simply (factually) did not actually use the game rules as noted in many posts. The rule book actually covers pretty much every concern.

None of this is a indictment on Shadowdark as a system, OSR as a framework or philosophy, or anything like it.

Its just yet another game that didnt seem to work out for the OP.

Now, I'm on holiday, supposedly, and working on my other laptop, but I wont be in this thread again so if someone actually is confused by the above and in actual good faith wants to figure out why, we can take it up elsewhere.
 

OSR as a framework or philosophy
As someone that dove head first in the OSR like three years ago, a recurring pattern that I saw is that the definition is looser than most think. I've lurked this thread and it's obvious that certain elements like the "lethality" is part of the OSR experience for some, not for others. Games that creep a bit further in term of design like the NSR games tend to slowly shift into a zone where some purists don't consider them OSR anymore.

I agree with you that the game is what the game is, and expectations are the part we have the most control on. But I just wanted to point out that expectations can be affected by different definitions.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top