Shadowdark Unless I am wrong

[Retreater]

It's the dunning-kruger effect in full force. Some people think that because they roleplay one game (often 5E, but not always) that makes them experts not only other RPGs of all sorts, but also RPG design theory.

If you're referring to me, let me explain. I have been running games since 1989. I own and have played dozens of systems that aren't 5E. Would you guess that I haven't played 5E in about two years?
I'm a published RPG writer. I spend hours every week watching videos about game design and theory. I crunch numbers and design RPG rules for fun.
I'm not a master game designer, but I'd put myself in the well above average category.
What I value in game design is not what Shadowdark offers. It's poorly designed for what I like, which would be a system that makes mathematical sense, makes a nod to balance where player ingenuity can matter within a rules framework, and design that isn't just 50 years of D&D tradition put in a blender and hoping for the best.
I was flipping through my book last night and saw two monster stat blocks that exemplify this design ethos. One is a goat giant and the other a stone giant. Both are Level 7 monsters. The hit points and damages are about the same. The stone giant has 5 more points of armor (AC 12 vs 17) and takes half damage from most weapon attacks. Both are level 7.
This design is indicative of the rest of Shadowdark. Numbers, probability, etc don't matter. Design doesn't matter. It's a system made for vibes.
And honestly, I've been running games long enough, I can just sit at a table and GM "vibes the game."

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not a master game designer, but I'd put myself in the well above average category.
What I value in game design is not what Shadowdark offers. It's poorly designed for what I like, which would be a system that makes mathematical sense, makes a nod to balance where player ingenuity can matter within a rules framework, and design that isn't just 50 years of D&D tradition put in a blender and hoping for the best.

I'm not sure how you reconcile various parts of this paragraph, but yeah, you are probably exactly who I'm talking about. No one is obliged to play or enjoy Shadowdark, but I have to say, there's a whole lot of your personal (and questionable) opinion masquerading as fact there. But hey, if you want to expand on how the system makes no mathematical sense, can't accommodate player ingenuity, and is just 5E on frappe, go nuts. I'll pop some popcorn.

 

[Mannahnin]

If you're referring to me, let me explain. I have been running games since 1989. I own and have played dozens of systems that aren't 5E. Would you guess that I haven't played 5E in about two years?
I'm a published RPG writer. I spend hours every week watching videos about game design and theory. I crunch numbers and design RPG rules for fun.
I'm not a master game designer, but I'd put myself in the well above average category.
What I value in game design is not what Shadowdark offers. It's poorly designed for what I like, which would be a system that makes mathematical sense, makes a nod to balance where player ingenuity can matter within a rules framework, and design that isn't just 50 years of D&D tradition put in a blender and hoping for the best.
I was flipping through my book last night and saw two monster stat blocks that exemplify this design ethos. One is a goat giant and the other a stone giant. Both are Level 7 monsters. The hit points and damages are about the same. The stone giant has 5 more points of armor (AC 12 vs 17) and takes half damage from most weapon attacks. Both are level 7.
This design is indicative of the rest of Shadowdark. Numbers, probability, etc don't matter. Design doesn't matter. It's a system made for vibes.
And honestly, I've been running games long enough, I can just sit at a table and GM "vibes the game."

I'm not sure if this post is strange or makes sense, given the math discussion in your prior thread. I'll say you have something of a point with that comparison to those two monsters, but your thesis is... weirdly hostile and strongly at odds with the experience most of us have with the game. Which is a lot more than yours.

R

Shadowdark Post in thread 'Finally Played Shadowdark'

Aug 15, 2025

Please stop saying that. It's not true. Spellcasting success rates are dependent on your casting stat. And some spells also are cast with advantage by default and other spells can be cast with advantage based on talent rolls.

It's true and I have the receipts.
The DC to cast is 10+spell level, so for a 1st level spell that's a default 50/50 if you get no bonuses.
But yes, you get to add your ability modifier. You get a +1 if you roll 12 on 3d6. That's a 12% chance of having +1. What about 14 on 3d6 - that's 7% chance to be +2. Those aren't great odds to balance a game system on...

• Retreater

Shadowdark Post in thread 'Finally Played Shadowdark'

Aug 19, 2025

That's because you can't run Shadowdark with Shadowdark alone. You need additional books to teach best practices. You need to read things like the Old School Primer, Principia Apocrypha.
Using the rules in the game, it's TPK after TPK. Using the adventures as written by Arcane Library, it's TPK after TPK. You have to house rule ... a lot.

You absolutely do not. Scribe and others have pointed out repeatedly in this thread that the GM advice you're asking for is literally in the GM book. Veldaren and Whizbang Dustyboots mentioned on page 2 of the thread that by the book Reaction...

• Mannahnin

• 

 

[Scribe]

I'm not a master game designer, but I'd put myself in the well above average category.

Considering the blatant errors in analysis you have demonstrated in your other thread when you first played Shadowdark, I find this post shocking, but this especially is well.

 

[Fenris-77]

Fenris-77 quietly flips through his library of publications for Shadowdark on DTRPG...

 

[Retreater]

Hey, I'm glad you folks (and many others) enjoy the system. You're not wrong for liking it. It's not for me. I have very specific reasons about design why I don't like it. I state that so emphatically so my dislike for the system is not mistaken for a dislike of the creator.

And if this were a thread about Pathfinder 2 or 5E or Castles & Crusades or Savage Worlds, I could write about what I dislike about those systems. Or if we were talking about Dungeon Crawl Classics I would tell you that I am still boycotting Goodman's products because of the Judges Guild controversy.

 

[Scribe]

Hey, I'm glad you folks (and many others) enjoy the system. You're not wrong for liking it. It's not for me. I have very specific reasons about design why I don't like it. I state that so emphatically so my dislike for the system is not mistaken for a dislike of the creator.

And if this were a thread about Pathfinder 2 or 5E or Castles & Crusades or Savage Worlds, I could write about what I dislike about those systems. Or if we were talking about Dungeon Crawl Classics I would tell you that I am still boycotting Goodman's products because of the Judges Guild controversy.

There is a difference however in

1. Not liking a system.
2. Not understanding a system.
3. Not being able to use a system.

You are 10000% within your rights to not like Shadowdark. At this point you couldnt pay me to play 5.5. However there is a difference between not liking something for its design, and it being in and of itself, 'poor design'.

So yeah, enjoy whatever system you have moved on to now (Daggerheart?).

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, you said SD's math is incoherent and that it doesn't foster or scaffold player ingenuity. Those are specific and objective claims about failures of the game's design, not whether or not you like that design. The phrase I think I'm looking for is 'hot takes'.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, you said SD's math is incoherent and that it doesn't foster or scaffold player ingenuity. Those are specific and objective claims about failures of the game's design, not whether or not you like that design. The phrase I think I'm looking for is 'hot takes'.

I'm still trying to parse what "a nod to balance where player ingenuity can matter within a rules framework" actually means.

 

[Velderan]

There is a difference however in

1. Not liking a system.
2. Not understanding a system.
3. Not being able to use a system.

You are 10000% within your rights to not like Shadowdark. At this point you couldnt pay me to play 5.5. However there is a difference between not liking something for its design, and it being in and of itself, 'poor design'.

So yeah, enjoy whatever system you have moved on to now (Daggerheart?).

From what I remember of the discussion in the other thread, they were clearly never going to like a game where a class has 1d4 HP to start and a quick review of the FREE quick start guide would have saved them some money and everyone else a bunch of time. I also remember their experience in the other thread sounding like the GM running the game read approximately 6 pages of the Shadowdark rules, decided they had the gist of it, and proceeded to ruin a table's convention experience.