Shadowdark looks so good!


log in or register to remove this ad


kenada

Legend
Supporter
I am talking about actually playing the game, not game design theory. I don't care about the platonic ideal of whether a game matches a latter-day decision about what compatibility means in 2023. I am aggressively, across all games and genres, all about at-the-table play.
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.

If I can grab a random TSR module -- don't get your hopes up, Forest Oracle -- and run it without encountering a meaningful speed bump, it's compatible by the standards of old school games as they were actually played at the time by people that included me.

Note that every game isn't compatible in this fashion. I would have to do work to convert something from RuneQuest or Traveller if I wanted to play it in a D&D derivative, for instance.

But the meaningful difference between BD&D and Shadowdark is so minor that it has taken vastly longer to post this than it would be to make the on-the-fly conversions for all of Keep on the Borderlands would be.
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).

I get that there is a whole subculture of people who are focused on teasing out the implicit world building and game design theory in older versions of D&D, but they neither own the OSR movement, nor do they get to define it. OSR is a big umbrella, with a lot of different people and games in it.

You and malmuria can want something different than I do and we are all right in our disparate desires.
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. 😅
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
That is a really weird line in the sand. It’s not B/X therefore it’s not compatible with B/X. Well, spoilers, it’s not trying to be B/X. We already have B/X and OSE and a dozen other clones.
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.
 


OK, this is such a weird claim, I have to ask: Do you actually run any games? Because you absolutely don't have to spend several minutes making a conversion.
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.

If there's, say, a thoul in a BD&D adventure you're running for Shadowdark and -- spoiler alert -- there's no thoul in Shadowdark, just run the adventure. Use the thoul's AC and the thoul's HP and damage and all the rest. Decide whether it should have an easy, normal, difficult or extremely easy time making a save when it's hit with a spell, based on those numbers I quoted above, and play.

It's super weird that you're both trying to gatekeep OSR while making the very bizarre claim that a DM can't just make a ruling on the fly in an OSR game -- which is a central ethos of the OSR movement.

And guess what? You can run any of them at the table without advance work.

I ran Castles & Crusades for my main campaign during the 4E D&D rules and I never converted anything. I just ran it. You can do it, too. You're free! Free, I tell you!

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

It's super weird that you're both trying to gatekeep OSR

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 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 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.
 


Autumnal

Bruce Baugh, Writer of Fortune
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.
Note to self: Try writing up sock monsters for Shadowdark and/or Ironsworn.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Upthread you seemed to take exception at @kenada making assumptions about your playing experience, yet you are doing essentially the same thing here.
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.
I'll accept this premise, as I don't fundamentally disagree, and just note that renders "compatibility" a functionally meaningless term.
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.
This is an offensive claim.
Stop behaving that way, then?
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.
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.
I am ambivalent about the parts of this hobby that are more about just buying/consuming and constant kickstarter hype and fomo.
An excellent way to avoid that is to stay off threads about projects being Kickstarted.
while adding some very mild criticism
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?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top