Shadowdark Shadowdark Discussion Thread [+]

[Fenris-77]

Another cool design space is 'reading' magic defenses like glyphs and wards and whatnot and figuring out how to bypass them. That bit reads and very Sam and Dean to me, which I like a lot.

 

[Fenris-77]

This also brings up the idea of the anti-magic otataral ore from Malazan Book of the Fallen. Maybe not as a class feature, but as a set of new anti-magic items.

 

[zakael19]

Had the time to glance through my newly purchased Shadowdark hardcopy today. Those monsters are such a cool masterclass in "how can we pare interesting mechanics all the way back." Just about the best you can do off the bones of a B/X d20 system ruthlessly streamlined.

 

[Reynard]

I still regularly consider adapting Dragonbane's monster rules to Shadowdark. Maybe once Western Reaches fully drops and I start a new SD campaign I will give it a real go.

 

[TwoSix]

So here's a question about that same topic that I've thought about a lot. Should the ability to read the traces of magic be reserved for specific classes? Should it by matching casting PCs to their own magic type? Or can anyone do it with training? A lot of options.

My preference for a SD version would be to limit it to casters but have one system that applies to all casters 'reading' all kinds of traces. The other options seem fiddly in the second case, and too broad in the third case.

Seems like you could have both, with some spells (or larger classes of magic) leaving physical traces and others leaving more ephemeral traces that require magical ability to observe.

 

[Reynard]

Seems like you could have both, with some spells (or larger classes of magic) leaving physical traces and others leaving more ephemeral traces that require magical ability to observe.

I feel like the ability to detect SOMETHING should be universal, but knowing what that something might mean is a function of either being trained, or actually learning it in play. The real question is whether to create vestiglia for every individual spell and magical effect, or to try and create a general set of rules.

 

[TwoSix]

I feel like the ability to detect SOMETHING should be universal, but knowing what that something might mean is a function of either being trained, or actually learning it in play. The real question is whether to create vestiglia for every individual spell and magical effect, or to try and create a general set of rules.

I dunno. I like the idea of castings like alchemy and witchcraft leaving obvious residues, while the traces of psychic or illusion spells can only be picked up by someone who's obviously sensitive. Or that healing spells of the Nature Spirits always leave behind a scent of lilac.

Emphasizing very specific class distinctions and abilities is always a good way to make classes feel more diegetic and grounded, which seems like a plus for Shadowdark.

 

[Reynard]

while the traces of psychic or illusion spells can only be picked up by someone who's obviously sensitive

I don't like it.

A psychic vestiglia could be how people in the area are just a little terse or anxious, or an illusion could leave behind just a weird little warp of the light coming in through the window.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't like it.

A psychic vestiglia could be how people in the area are just a little terse or anxious, or an illusion could leave behind just a weird little warp of the light coming in through the window.

Sure. It's easy enough to rationalize and explain either way; I think the deeper question is "What are the pros and cons of having class-specific detection abilities"?

 

[Reynard]

Sure. It's easy enough to rationalize and explain either way; I think the deeper question is "What are the pros and cons of having class-specific detection abilities"?

I think that since Shadowdark embraces the OSR idea of "clever play" at least to some degree, there is value in NOT gating these things behind class abilities.