Shadow of the Demon Lord - your analysis?

[CubicsRube]

I don't really see those as social attributes.

But my issues with 5e run far deeper than that. I abandoned d20 systems back in 1982-ish, and only returned to 5e in 2010. After two campaigns, one of 43 sessions, one 18 sessions (ended in TPK) I am once again quitting d20 systems (although I have a current campaign using 5e Ultramodern). I find 5e, particularly the magic and feats, to be grossly over-powered, the skills system to be under-developed, to name my chief complaints.

Yeah that's fair. I have a number of other systems in my pile to run all because they hit different needs.

The witcher is one i'm hoping to run which scratches the skill itch for me.

 

[CubicsRube]

Those aren't social attributes; further, some of the dumbest SOB's I've known are absolutely charming. As in, get elected to Congress level charming in one case. SLightly over room temp IQ, no backbone to speak of...
It's a verisimilitude issue.

As for advancement - you've conflated speed and height of advancement. Flat is about how much the numbers grow... I've seen steep but slow, where every advancement is huge, but you almost never get them (Classic Traveller), Slow and relatively flat (2d20 system Star Trek Adventures- where actual growth is about 1 point increase over about 20-30 sessions on a roll that's 1d20 vs tn... Fast and small (a couple percentile games where advancement was 1-2 skills gaining 1-2 points per session), Slow and absolutely flat (no actual numerical growth - but you can swap skills - Several flavors of FATE) Fast and Steep (Palladium at low levels).
5E D&D is pretty flat - the numbers for peak skill go (over 20 levels) from +7 at level 1 to +11 at 20th. Not much growth in the numbers. (The assorted piles of special abilities don't increase those numbers most of the time... but make them available more often. Rogues have much better in a couple fields.)

As long as you don't then see strength and dexterity as combat attributes because they're used for other things.

I don't see value in trying to compare game stats to real world stats. In the game experience itself i have seen it allows smart players and players for a forceful personality both be social characters. This is a much better dynamic for me than everyone not engaging with the social pillar because they have a low charisma score. You might not like it, but it works very well for me and my group.

And are you referring to someone else about speed of advancement? I didn't really get into that in this thread.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I'm familiar with SoTDL. My chief complaint with it, is that while it has a great core premise (and one I've stolen more than once since reading it), it fails to get the premise down to the player level the way War Hammer/40k, Fading Suns, or Lovecraftian games (to name a few) get their core themes integrated into the very gameplay.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this (since I tend to run it more nobledark than grimdark), but would you mind expanding on what you mean by this? SotDL has two attributes that specifically interact with the horror themes in different ways (Corruption and Insanity, the latter of which I renamed to Stress for my games). Just learning certain traditions of magic causes Corruption, which gradually inflicts penalties until you get to the point where devils are proactively trying to drag you down to hell. Plenty of monsters can inflict fear, and lore-wise the inevitiability of the world's eventual unmaking is enough to make a chaos marine blush.

 

[Aldarc]

Shadow of the Demon Lord would probably be one of my first choices for games if I wanted to play the Diablo franchise as a TTRPG.

I am looking forward to how the game evolves in its next iteration: Shadow of the Weird Wizard. I was a play-tester but I dropped it when the updates to the playtest materials outpaced my ability to playtest them.

But if I may gush for a bit:

The boon/bane system is just superior to advantage/disadvantage in every way. The swing is smaller, which may or may not be a feature for you, but the way they stack makes it so much easier to modify the difficult of things based on what the players are doing.

The paths system is essentially mandatory multiclassing, but it mostly means that no matter what style of character you're playing, you'll get to make meaningful progression decisions as you grow in power.

Combat options that are easy to use for any character, but martials can make the best use of, means that even if you make the simpliest character possible, you still have more options than just "I attack".

Professions instead of skills are much more vague and open ended, and yet still manage to make characters feel more like people with histories than stat blocks.

Four attributes instead of six. Strength and Constitution are folded into one stat, Charisma is just nuked from orbit, and instead of Wisdom there's Willpower, which is a lot easier to differentiate from Intelligence.

Magic is learned via traditions, which means casters have to specialize outside of specific generalist paths. Each tradition is either cast via Intelligence or Willpower, and is clearly stated upfront.

Numbers are a flatter all around, which means that things stay dangerous for longer. Fewer numbers in general also makes it a lot easier to run and teach.

SotDL delivers on some of the modularity that I was expecting out of 5e D&D. The organization of spells as magic traditions makes it easier for me to add or subtract these traditions from different homebrew settings or to tie certain magical traditions with magical institutions in the game world.

"Yeah, over here is the War Academy of Nationia, and it specializes in teaching Arcana, Battle, Protection, and Fire magic traditions."

This was something that I frequently did with the powers when True 20 was my go-to system during the d20 System era. I find this easier to do when magical is organized along more thematic specialties rooted in how players typically approach constructing their magical character: e.g., "I want to play an elementalist who focuses on ice magic" or "I want to play a necromancer who masters life and death."

And as someone who doesn't like D&D's six attributes, I find the reduction of base attributes in SotDL to four useful ones to be a breath of fresh air. I do think, however, that if SotDL had renamed the mental attributes to Mind and Spirit/Heart, that it might have been a little easier to distinguish between Intelligence and Willpower. But I do acknowledge that Intelligence and Willpower likely fit the tone of SotDL better than either Heart or Spirit.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this (since I tend to run it more nobledark than grimdark), but would you mind expanding on what you mean by this? SotDL has two attributes that specifically interact with the horror themes in different ways (Corruption and Insanity, the latter of which I renamed to Stress for my games). Just learning certain traditions of magic causes Corruption, which gradually inflicts penalties until you get to the point where devils are proactively trying to drag you down to hell. Plenty of monsters can inflict fear, and lore-wise the inevitiability of the world's eventual unmaking is enough to make a chaos marine blush.

It is tone, the feeling of the setting. As I noted, there are other games which hammer the dire nature of their setting down into every aspect of a session, but IMO SotDL does not. It gets closest with magic-users, as you've noted, but leaves the other classes largely untouched. In all, it falls short.

There are so many boring settings out there (most, in fact), that SotDL stands out, but there are enough better ones that I won't bother using it.

 

[BrokenTwin]

@Jd Smith1 : Can't argue about how it feels for you, but I appreciate you elaborating your thoughts.

 

[CubicsRube]

It's come up a few times but after using it for years it's still the modularity of the classes and spell schools that make it great for me.

I love using NPc spellcasters because of the thematic schools. I could make a skald with song and battle tradition at the drop of a hat. Or a runic diviner. Or a magical plague pirate. I don't know any system that could make it easier. I can make one up in the middle of a game and just look down the lists.

I'm also enjoying seeing the characters evolve in the different campaigns. I haven't managed to kill one yet (!), but i always enjoy seeing how they evolve.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I've only had a few PC deaths so far, and every time it's because they ignored clearly telegraphed warnings that their party members desperately trying to convince them out of.
Like the goblin trying to climb the giant demon-possessed zombie t-rex to show explosives up its rectum. He actually succeeded in that mission, but he did NOT survive it.

Actually... I think all of my PC deaths so far have been goblins. I don't know if that's due to the type of players I have playing goblins or what.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Like the goblin trying to climb the giant demon-possessed zombie t-rex to show explosives up its rectum. He actually succeeded in that mission, but he did NOT survive it.

That sentence perfectly illustrates the failure of SotDL to translate the interesting potential of its dark core premise into actual play.

In the end, SotDL ends up being just another silly fantasy romp. Its not bad-wrong fun, but it cannot translate its unique concept into actual play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I believe he is saying that he prefers systems that:
1: Have more than 4 stats
2: Have skills instead of professions
3: Have a social stat
4: Have a equal progression to 5e

Myself, I agree on #1-3. Personally, I feel 5e is grossly overpowers, so my position on #4 is the opposite.

I find that an utterly bizarre list of reasons to not want to approach a game. Although I do agree on your assessment of the silly fantasy romp (goblin shoving explosive in a dinosaur's rectum), but I cannot be sure if that is (1) a fault of the system or (2) the adventure design by the DM or (3) player choices for their character - my guess is 2 or 3. If they had fun though is all that matters ofc. To each their own.