Shadow of the Demon Lord - your analysis?

[Retreater]

I'm liking the 4 stats as presented in Forbidden Lands and makes perfect sense to me (Strength, Agility, Wits, Empathy). Honestly, I think it covers everything you'd want in a D&D-like fantasy system. But maybe that's just me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

Emotional Intelligence
EQ not IQ

 

[Jd Smith1]

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.

Well, I have issues with a T-rex in a fantasy setting. The rest just seems childish. But, to each their own.

But while it isn't my list, I don't find it strange at all. 1-3 are issues for me as well.

 

[BrokenTwin]

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.

I mean, that example is entirely due to that particular group's preferred playstyle (zany antics in an utterly dark setting). Similiar things would (and have) happened playing Warhammer 40K and Fantasy, so I wouldn't chalk that up to an issue with the system itself.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I mean, that example is entirely due to that particular group's preferred playstyle (zany antics in an utterly dark setting). Similiar things would (and have) happened playing Warhammer 40K and Fantasy, so I wouldn't chalk that up to an issue with the system itself.

Maybe.

Certain settings seem to encourage juvenile approaches.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Maybe.

Certain settings seem to encourage juvenile approaches.

SotDL goblins in particular seem to encourage juvenile approaches, which is why I started steering away from allowing my players to use them after the first few games. Or, more accurately, SotDL goblins tend to draw players who enjoy juvenile antics. I'm definitely not going to say SotDL doesn't have gross body humor baked into parts of its DNA (there's a Forbidden spell called Hateful Defecation), but it's pretty easy to excise if that's not what you want in your game. Having listened to Schawlb's actual plays of the game, he definitely has a thing for body horror mixed with crude humor, and it certainly crops up in different parts of the system and setting.

Having said that, if SotDL isn't the game for you, that's fine. It works well for the groups I play with as a replacement for 5E with a grittier edge. Especially with the expanded Insanity, Corruption, and permanent injuries optional rules.

And if it helps, the demonically-possessed zombie t-rex was entirely my own creation, it's not an actual monster in the bestiary (that I'm aware of). They were in an ancient primeval forest, it was a beer and pretzels campaign to begin with, and I like dinosaurs.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

The thing is, I read a lot of games. I've run a lot of games. The fact that you find a list of why bizarre? Not my problem. That you don't understand my reasoning for them? More a problem.
1) I've often found 4-att systems conflating things I don't like conflated.
2) I've found that I don't like the emergent playstyle of systems usising broad professions; it often leads to a lot of negotiation in play. Wastes time and effort.
3) a separate social stat from the logical/mathematical attribute is something that helps me not chafe at the system. (Palladium, which has a social stat, doesn't ever USE it, and that was a source of frustration, as well) Putting the social tasks across two, in my life and educational experience independently qualifiable atts is both a barrier to some of my players, and a problem for me with verisimilitude.
4) JD was wrong on 4 - wrong element of D&D advancement picked. I don't care for flat, I'm not picky about speed. I'm also not a fan of character levels... I consider 5E a little too flat in some ways, and not flat enough in others (too many class features!), but better by far than 3.X

No one of those is a dead-flat fail. 3 of them? no longer worth my time and money barring some unqiue and interesting element. The thread provided the elements I'm interested in knowing.

I'm in no way implying others shouldn't like it. That it has features I'd find annoying? Good to know from my POV. That it has a boon/bane system? Interesting. Interesting enough that I appreciate the explanation. The explanation was different than other games labelling subsystems with the same name.

OP wanted to know why it has such a limited audience...
In my case, it hadn't been pushed in a way that made it look like more than another OSR-ish heartbreaker.
Finding out more, I noted (and a lot of the thread seems to be trying to come to grips with) my reasons why, now that it's on my radar, it's on my avoid list. Simply put, those are elements I don't like in other games and the combination's killed what little interest the thread raised in reading the game. I am enjoying reading about it, even as I'm becoming less interested in reading/running it. I may be particularly unusual in that way. I'm weird. In many ways.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I played in an extended campaign of this.

Some observations:

Absolutely do not play this game longer than 10-12 sessions, the author doesn't recommend it either, it simply isn't built for this.

Magic users are generally weaker than martial characters. Mainly because alot of spells require saves. Saves are always a static difficulty, so as you level and you fight correspondingly more powerful enemies their ability to make this save increases.

If you are playing a caster, use a type that can inflict banes to decrease the opponent's ability to make that save.

 

[BrokenTwin]

@aramis erak : Perfectly reasonable. I find SotDL to hit that sweet point for me between D&D 5E and OSR games, so I definitely understand the comparison.

@eyeheartawk : While I agree, it can work for longer games, but it definitely takes some tweaking. Like you said, it was designed to be played as 10-ish self-contained adventures. Adapting it for sandbox or Adventure Path style play is possible, but you need to modify the advancement system for that to work. Curse of Strahd, for example, runs fine in SotDL with the usage of milestone points for leveling.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The thing is, I read a lot of games. I've run a lot of games. The fact that you find a list of why bizarre? Not my problem. That you don't understand my reasoning for them? More a problem.

Appreciate the explanation.