Shadowdark looks so good!
- Thread starter Jahydin
- Start date
I was looking at running the orange-cover version of Palace of the Silver Princess a while back. There are some … not good … new monsters in it.
I’m about both. One of the things that burned me out running Pathfinder 2e was that I never got to the point where I felt comfortable with the system without relying on aids to remember all the different degrees of success. At the same time, I like to look critically at how I’m running and read what people have to say about games. It’s given me words to help me understand and express what I want out of games (because it’s not play in the traditional sense), which then helps me focus on running the game I want to run and communicate what I’m trying to do to my players.
Thanks. That helps me understand what you mean by compatibility. I was assuming there was some math-patching involved, but that was not a correct assumption. I’m not sure that’s something I’d like doing, but that’s a me issue (for various reasons).
Sure, but they’re still going to opine occasionally. Hopefully at least I can do so next time without putting my foot in my mouth.
I’ve got nothing more to add to what @Malmuria said except the conversation went off the rails with me. I really dislike “modern” saving throws and setting DCs, and I responded badly because of that bias.
Upthread you seemed to take exception at @kenada making assumptions about your playing experience, yet you are doing essentially the same thing here. You are also not reading my above posts very carefully, because I explicitly say that converting things is not very hard, not a big deal, and that SD is likely better by following its own math rather than b/x math. Anyway, to answer you question, yes, I play in and run a lot of OSR games, both as one shots at my local gaming store, and as mini-campaigns for my more regular online group of friends.
I'll accept this premise, as I don't fundamentally disagree, and just note that renders "compatibility" a functionally meaningless term. I mean, sure, conversion is super easy if you just never convert anything! Or if you are familiar enough with the system a module was designed for and the system you are using, that you can make those kind of transpositions on the fly. I was, however, trying to make a distinction between compatibility in the "it doesn't matter, just roll some dice and make a decision" sense, and specific games that try to explicitly facilitate the process of conversion by following the math of those older editions and and explaining how the two systems relate. But that distinction seems to consistently be lost on you so we can drop it.
Finally, to pull one bit from the above
This is an offensive claim. My initial post in this thread and half of the subsequent ones have emphasized that I'm happy this game is doing well, and at no point have I thrown shade at people for liking what they like. I'm particularly happy that people are supporting a queer woman in a scene mostly dominated by men.
That said, I do find some of the marketing claims, and some of the claims made in various articles and youtube videos about the game, to not match up to my read of the mechanics, and I've tried to explain why. I've also mentioned what I thought the game was doing well (the presentation of information, the fantastic art, and the promise of continued support). I agree with you that the essence of gaming is in playing and in making/sharing; but for this reason I am ambivalent about the parts of this hobby that are more about just buying/consuming and constant kickstarter hype and fomo. For example, I keep saying that I'm glad the game is doing well while adding some very mild criticism of some of the marketing claims; that this strikes you as 'OSR gatekeeping' shows the latter (kickstarter hype) often drowns out any attempt to describe these products on their own merits.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
I would love an OAR version of that book, since -- as opposed to X2 or B2 -- the different versions of the adventure are famously different. WotC had a good, very frank version of the story on their site a few years ago, but there's probably more Goodman's interviewers could get. But yeah, it's sort of like Temple of Elemental Evil in that the new monsters are the equivalent of getting socks as a Christmas present. Sure, they're better than nothing, but it's hard to get excited about them.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Black cover with a not-beholder on it and a green (maybe textured) cover with a lich on it.
Autumnal
Bruce Baugh, Writer of Fortune
Note to self: Try writing up sock monsters for Shadowdark and/or Ironsworn.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Because you keep saying weird stuff that makes you sound like someone who collects RPGs rather than plays them, including the hilarious suggestion that it's a problem that an OSR DM will have to make some rulings on the fly.
And it is OK if people are just RPG collectors -- there's a significant portion of the hobby who, for a variety of reasons, don't get to play often or even at all -- but it definitely colors how you respond to a game, because something that might seem like a problem on the page isn't in play, or vice versa.
The stats of a monster being slightly off from another version of them, or stats being incomplete because you're running monsters from a slightly different version of the game are examples of something that looks like an issue on paper but isn't even noticeable in play.
The dictionary definition is a meaningless term, then. If you can use two things together without significant effort, that's compatible.
"Compatible" does not mean "seamless," which is what you're asking for. It's a standard that anything other than a retroclone will fail.
Stop behaving that way, then?
Yes, we have classic "just asking questions" behavior, followed by detailed explanations of why, actually, this isn't a game people should like. When anyone pushes back, there's snark or even outright melting down.
No one is coming for your RPG collection, no matter how well or poorly this game does. You can choose to not be triggered by this game and this thread.
An excellent way to avoid that is to stay off threads about projects being Kickstarted.
You consciously came onto a thread that, by its very title, said that people were enjoying a thing, and you wanted to make sure we know, repeatedly, over the course of 10 days, that you do not enjoy it.
What are your plans for later this month? Stand outside the theater and tell everyone who enjoyed the D&D movie that they shouldn't have?
Ah, okay. I want a physical copy of the core rules, but I don’t need a fancy one. I just don’t want POD, which isn’t an option.
I was 9007. They’re really on the ball. I already got an email to fill out information on BackerKit, which was nicely proactive. The add-ons were also integrated into the pledge screen, which is the first time I’ve seen that. You usually have to add extra to your pledge then pick the things you want when checking out on the fulfillment platform.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
Dungeon Denizens has the "select add ons as part of pledging" thing also. First time I’d seen that as well.
The most recent thing I’d backed was Cities Without Number, which closed at the start of March, but Kevin Crawford doesn’t do add-ons or stretch goals. Prior to that was some other stuff last year I don’t recall having the extra UI. I appreciate the feature. It makes getting your pledge right a lot easier when you want add-ons (though at least BackerKit lets you pay later if you mess up or forget).
overgeeked
B/X Known World
My last one before Dungeon Denizens was Monty Python. Long list of possible add ons but all handled through backerkit.
Yeah, it's a great feature. I hope it's now standard. So much easier.
deganawida
Hero
Shared the KS with my best friend, who's also my normal DM. He really liked it. Like, really liked it. He even liked that there were fewer classes, and didn't mind race-as-class. He normally plays bards, and has never cared for race-as-class (except in Palladium Fantasy). It might be just what is needed for us to go back to a more old-school style of game.
Once one admits some amount of customization (feats, talents, foci, etc), race-as-class doesn’t make much sense. It’s an obvious and easy customization point, especially if you’re trying to appeal to people with experience playing other games that have it.
Also, good on Shadowdark for not having ancestry level limits or class restrictions. Limiting class progression based on race was always a dubious balancing mechanism.
Also, good on Shadowdark for not having ancestry level limits or class restrictions. Limiting class progression based on race was always a dubious balancing mechanism.
JohnSnow
Hero
I think there's a definitional question about compatible that probably bothers people more who came to the hobby late.
For those of us who played back in the days of the BECMI/Advanced D&D split, we knew that one system had AC start at 9 and go down, whereas the other had AC start at 10 and go down. Similarly, different attributes had different bonuses from one system to the other (BECMI didn't have percentile strength, which was a weird system anyway).
But if we chose to use a BECMI module with AD&D characters, or vice-versa, we just accepted those little differences because they were effectively inconsequential. The Moldvay Basic Rulebook "goblin" having slightly different stats from an AD&D Monster Manual "goblin warrior" didn't matter, because the stat blocks were close enough that they didn't even need to be fudged. You don't need to look up the stats for the goblins your PCs encounter in the Shadowdark rulebook, you can just use the stats exactly as they are written in Keep on the Borderlands, because the mathematical variance is insignificant. We're after playability here, not some platonic ideal of perfectly balanced game design.
Which I think is the major point Whizbang Dustyboots has been trying to make about Shadowdark. To a great degree, it's just as compatible with the monsters from both BECMI/AD&D/C&C and every other OSR game that 90% of the on-the-fly conversion is basically: "Change AC to ascending. Done."
For those of us who played back in the days of the BECMI/Advanced D&D split, we knew that one system had AC start at 9 and go down, whereas the other had AC start at 10 and go down. Similarly, different attributes had different bonuses from one system to the other (BECMI didn't have percentile strength, which was a weird system anyway).
But if we chose to use a BECMI module with AD&D characters, or vice-versa, we just accepted those little differences because they were effectively inconsequential. The Moldvay Basic Rulebook "goblin" having slightly different stats from an AD&D Monster Manual "goblin warrior" didn't matter, because the stat blocks were close enough that they didn't even need to be fudged. You don't need to look up the stats for the goblins your PCs encounter in the Shadowdark rulebook, you can just use the stats exactly as they are written in Keep on the Borderlands, because the mathematical variance is insignificant. We're after playability here, not some platonic ideal of perfectly balanced game design.
Which I think is the major point Whizbang Dustyboots has been trying to make about Shadowdark. To a great degree, it's just as compatible with the monsters from both BECMI/AD&D/C&C and every other OSR game that 90% of the on-the-fly conversion is basically: "Change AC to ascending. Done."
Autumnal
Bruce Baugh, Writer of Fortune
Very much agreed something that different people feel differently at a gut level is this: no session includes a statistically significant set of rolls. If you’ve got a party of four, and each player makes 20 or so checks for success (setting aside damage and such here), and the GM rolls twice as often as any one of them, that’s a whole 120 rolls. That’s not nothing, but any statistician would tell you to expect something other that strict conformity to the odds. Indeed, too-close conformity might arouse some doubt whether some part of the rolling environment is out of whack.
And lots of us won’t roll that often in a typical session.
This is a big influence on my own “close enough is really the same in practice” attitude. I suspect many others feel. The same thing intuitively, whether or not they can articulate it.
There are games finely enough tuned that a one-point difference can genuinely matter a lot. D&D hasn’t ever been one of them.
And lots of us won’t roll that often in a typical session.
This is a big influence on my own “close enough is really the same in practice” attitude. I suspect many others feel. The same thing intuitively, whether or not they can articulate it.
There are games finely enough tuned that a one-point difference can genuinely matter a lot. D&D hasn’t ever been one of them.
