Has anyone tried this game? It’s yet another take on modernizing OSR, which apparently has gathered a few enthusiastic players.

I’ve heard that it doesn’t do anything new, but what is there, it’s excellent. I’ve been feeling the itch for a dungeon crawl for quite some time now (all my parties have been playing narrative-heavy DnD5e/5.5 and it’s becoming a bit stale tbh), so I wanted to master something different. Do you have experience with Shadowdark? Would you recommend it? Is there something I should pay attention to? Tips on how to run OSR?

Has anyone tried this game? It’s yet another take on modernizing OSR, which apparently has gathered a few enthusiastic players.

I’ve heard that it doesn’t do anything new, but what is there, it’s excellent. I’ve been feeling the itch for a dungeon crawl for quite some time now (all my parties have been playing narrative-heavy DnD5e/5.5 and it’s becoming a bit stale tbh), so I wanted to master something different. Do you have experience with Shadowdark? Would you recommend it? Is there something I should pay attention to? Tips on how to run OSR?

I’ve run a couple sessions of shadow dark now and i really like it.

I feared players would be bored because character progression is very random and mechanics are very simple, but so far that’s not the case, there is way more “oh maybe we could jam that door with some of the bones in this sarcaphogus” and “we might be able to get into the spooky temple if we get our hands on some cultists robe” and way less looking up skills and spells.

I also spend way less time prepping specific encounters, because ‘balance’ is not expected and my players tend to tackle situations very different from what i expected, so i have more time to think about the people they’ve met or tie things together that started as random encounters and things happening in the background that they might stumble over.

as for running ‘an OSR game’ that will look different for everbody else, some people will dive in to a different dungeon every session, others will spend a lot of time in a city talking to people, gathering clues about old dangerous places or dragon kidnapping princesses and a dungeon is more of a giatn set piece, the only things that i find to be common in OSR are:

1. have fun.
2. Rulings over rules, if it seems right to ask for a check with a dc of 12 in a given situation that’s what will be done even if there is a rule stating the dc should be 14 and the players gets advantage. we are here to have fun and not stopping every 15 minutes just to see if we have fun the ‘proper’ way.
3. combat is not the default state of an encounter. Orcs don’t just teleport in surrounding you, the encounter starts with the players noticing them and they might not be out for blood, they could be paid off with some rations, or they could be avoided entirely, or they are fleeing from an owlbear.

Shadowdark was literally created for your situation, it is designed to be an OSR game with mechanics that will be familiar to 5e players.

As you said, it doesn’t do anything completely new but it is one of the most elegant rpg systemsI’ve ever played. A wonderful balance of simplicity and richness.

If you’re new to OSR styles of play my tip would be to embrace the fragility of life. Having character deaths be an expected part of the game can be quite jarring to players used to 5e. Consider running a “funnel” game where your players each have multiple “level 0” characters that go through a dungeon where most of them will die, and the survivors become your character pool. Its a way to get players to shift their mindset.

The Lair of the Lamb by the brilliant Arnold K is a great funnel dungeon: https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2020/04/lair-of-lamb-final.html

Feel free to ask any questions you might have.

If it’s of interest, the Glass Cannon Podcast is running Shadowdark as their main game right now. Worth checking out on youtube if you’re interested to see how it plays. The videos show how the hexcrawl works a bit as well. The system seems like a really strong option if it fits the darker vibe you’re looking for.

I really enjoy the possibility of dying at any moment, but one of my players seems a bit frightened by it. Sounds like he doesn’t want to put too much thought or care into a character that is maybe going to die and be replaced a few sessions down the line.

It’s funny, because he and I constantly lament the fact that our current DM is too scared of killing our characters, and constantly pulls something out of his ass to save us at the last minute.

I dread the reactions of my other players, those who are more accustomed (and are even okay) to the narrative-heaviness of our current campaign and its inherent plot armor magic.

Thanks, this is a very thorough answer.

I was a bit skeptic of the character building aspect as well. SD looks a lot simpler and barebones even compared to DnD, which is already peetty barebones if you don’t pick a caster. My players really enjoy building a specific character and most of us homebrew their own class/subclass (with the master’s consensus). Hopefully they’ll be able to embrace the more freeform playstyle of SD.

Your point about different OSR tables having different gameplay is interesting. I was under the impression that the dungeon was the entire point of OSR. At least at first glance, Shadowdark doesn’t look like a game where the social/investigation aspect has time to shine - there is no skill system, and the spellcasting rules seem balanced around the assumption that you’re dungeon crawling… That’s probably me being a bit too tied to the familiarity of DnD though. I’ll look up some gameplay videos and see how other people who are more skilled than me do it.

Thanks a lot for the tips!

One of the commonly touted tenets of OSR play is “diegetic progression”; most character progression is in the world, not on the character sheet. This is why you see a lot weird magic items in OSR resources, stuff that gives particular abilities that encourage creative uses rather than just a + to stats. This type of progression also includes relationships with NPCs and factions that players can call on for assistance. Players don’t need to be able to defeat the Ogre in combat if the local chieftain owes them a big favour for rescuing his daughter and will send a squad of his best soldiers to fight it for you/chase it off.

Not having skills on the character sheet is one of the core ideas of OSR play, the idea that players should be coming up with creative solutions in the game and not just relying on the pass or fail of a dice roll to solve problems. Hand in hand with this is, as the above commenter mentions, “rulings over rules” which emphasizes the GM making decisions about how player actions play out in the world rather than looking for mechanics in a rulebook. This encourages stuff like creative tactics in combat, e.g. a player tips over a bookshelf onto the group of goblins; the GM decides the goblins next to it have a 50% chance of dodging out of the way or getting knocked down, or players have advantage against them on their attacks next round as the goblins dive out of the way, etc. There’s no rules for this, so the sky is the limit for players to try out cool ideas. Players stop looking at their character sheets and rulebooks when presented with a problem in the game, they engage harder with the game, usually asking questions about details of the situation to see if there is anything they can use to their advantage. For groups that embrace this style of play it is much more immersive than playing a game where your options are dictated by game mechanics rather than the game world.

The most important idea in this, imo, is that a lot of stuff shouldn’t even be rolled for; if its reasonable that a player could do it, then it just succeeds. If the players come up with a good idea, just have it work for them unless they are under stress (e.g. hurrying to pick a lock while a boulder rolls down the hallway at them) or there is some adversarial element where an opponent’s skill could counteract the player’s, e.g. seeing through a player’s disguise, avoiding 2 players trying to wrap them in a rope, etc. This really incentivizes the players to think creatively, when their good ideas are rewarded without being at the fickle whims of the dice.

Hand in hand with this is, as the above commenter mentions, “rulings over rules” which emphasizes the GM making decisions about how player actions play out in the world rather than looking for mechanics in a rulebook.

It’s kind of funny but I really like how Fate is open ended, but absolutely hate it in OSR games. I think because OSR games often feel unilateral and top down from the GM, and I don’t enjoy that. Reminds me of teenage games where the DM would be like “you’re crippled now because the orc hit your leg” just because they said so, and your only options are deal with it or quit.

I also never play in the “I am my character!” mode. I’m more of the writer’s room style where we’re writing a story together, so it doesn’t take me out of the scene to be like “what if my succeed-at-a-cost roll means I get the window open, but wake up every dog in the house?”.

Reminds me of teenage games where the DM would be like “you’re crippled now because the orc hit your leg” just because they said so, and your only options are deal with it or quit.

I mean, terrible GMs will be terrible no matter what system they are running.

I think because OSR games often feel unilateral and top down from the GM, and I don’t enjoy that… I’m more of the writer’s room style where we’re writing a story together…

You are talking about a completely different style of game.

I mean, terrible GMs will be terrible no matter what system they are running.

True, but I think osr games encourage unilateral GMing, which encourages terrible behavior.

I think that’s an ignorant take. “Unilateral” GMing is completely necessary to the style of play and opens up player creativity and engagement in the ways I discussed in other comments. Do you really think the OSR would be thriving if it actively encouraged terrible behaviour? It seems like you play with young or immature groups, if you think this is a pervasive problem in the scene.

Players in OSR games want simulation, not collaborative story telling. They want to test themselves against an organic, immersive world where their actions have consequences, good or bad. You cannot get that experience from collaborative storytelling games, and games with a lot of fixed rules can’t cover all of the possibilities of a complex world. This is the core appeal of OSR play and changing it removes the reason most people play it.

“Unilateral” GMing is completely necessary to the style of play and opens up player creativity and engagement in the ways I discussed in other comments.

I don’t think a unilateral GM and the mother-may-I it implies are the only way to get player creativity and engagement.

They want to test themselves against an organic, immersive world where their actions have consequences, good or bad. You cannot get that experience from collaborative storytelling games,

Maybe?

Imagine a scene where the players are trying to jump from one roof top to another to escape pursuit. It’s a pretty long jump, and there aren’t explicit rules in this game for jumping distances. The GM says to roll the dice. On a good roll, they’ll make it. The dice come up Bad.

In one mode of play, the GM unilaterally decides what happens. Maybe you fall and get hurt. Maybe you land in a pile of trash. It’s all on them, and you have to accept it to keep playing. The actions have consequences.

In the mode I prefer, the player has more of a say. Maybe they suggest they succeed at a cost. They can offer “What if I make it across, but lose my backpack?” and the group can accept it, or say that’s not an appropriate cost. They can also fail, and offer up ideas for what that looks like. The group achieves consensus, and the story moves on. The actions have consequences here, too.

That first mode, where the GM just dictates what happens and you take it? I hate it. I want either clear rules we agreed to before-hand, or a seat at the table for deciding ambiguous outcomes.

We don’t have to play together. Many people want to immerse in their character and any sort of meta-game mechanics (like succeed-at-a-cost) ruin it for them. Some people love metal and some people love jazz. Neither’s better than the other.

I probably shouldn’t have posted in an OSR thread knowing I dislike the genre.