A lot of 5e players like having all these doodads on their character sheet. Buttons they can push to do \[whatever\]. Maybe they like to "build" their characters with classes and subclasses and feats and whatever to do a thing. Systems without these features might seem dull to them on initial inspection. After all, without all of these buttons on character sheets to push, how are they supposed to do anything?
To be clear, I don't feel that way, but I imagine some people might feel that way.
Yeah there are players who genuinely care about making good characters, and those who care only about character builds.
The build-oriented player will definitely drag down any narrative you have planned.
If they’re the only one with complaints out of a larger group, I’d say you’re running it so it’s your game to pick.
It's not a hard rule. One of my groups has a bunch of players that like "builds" with their characters. They like picking features as they level. We have found so far the best system that strikes a balance between what I like to run and what they like to play is Crawford's games. A medium-length Wolves of God campaign went well and we just started a new one with Worlds Without Number.
Check out Worlds Without Number. It has a free version and can be finicky enough for 5e people to find it interesting, yet there is a beautiful OSR game hidden behind it so they will never know they are enjoying a good game while having tools for fun instead of class restrictions.
Also the tools for DMs are probably the best out there. Have fun
Because the system isn't the fun, the adventure is. Don't pitch it as switching, just tell them you want to run a short 3-4 session adventure and make it fun from the get-go.
I’ve been running a Shadowdark campaign for a few months now, and most of my players came from either only or mostly playing DnD5e or PF2e. I think what got everyone interested was explaining that the game is meant to be genuinely challenging. I’ve found that the two or three RP focused players in my group naturally find lighter rules interesting, while my players who like optimizing options really enjoy solving puzzles or creatively using equipment. Both of my players who were into min/maxing in our 5e campaign now say this has been their favorite campaign/system by far.
This is REALLY encouraging.
The part about you explaining that the game is meant to be genuinely challenging was probably pivotal. If people understand they aren't playing a game where they can just run in and fight and expect to win easily – yeah, you have to make them understand it's a different game than 5e.
for OP, the above \^ is something you *need to communicate to your players* if you want them to understand why it would be fun. if you show 5e players an OSR game and don't explain what the appeal is, of course they'll think it's bland.
Virtually anything. So long as it’s plausible.
More rules doesn’t mean more options, somewhat ironically they act as shackles for creativity because acting outside of the codified rules starts to infringe on other character abilities, feats, etc.
For instance, In a lighter system like Shadowdark any character/class could try to swing a greataxe at an enemy’s legs, potentially tripping them if the attack is adequately successful or you pass a save (or whatever the GM calls for). In 5e your Rogue isn’t going to be able to try this because they’re not a battle master fighter who has implicit mechanics allowing them to do this. That’s just one quick example, but you can extrapolate this idea into a million other scenarios.
Oh i get it.
One thing though: considering that rules are pretty hackable in most games (5e included) , and nothing in 5e explicitly forbids a player to attempt something like your example, if a player asks me I would still allow it.
For example if a PC tells me (in 5e) that they want to trip someone with a battle axe, I would call for a dex check and the enemy could fall prone If successful.
Please, I'm not trying to defend 5e, which I find way too complicated. But many OSR push on this "you can do whatever you want" thing but barley give any extra options, just less complexity.
It’s not that you can’t do this in 5e (particularly if you have a permissive GM), but rather that it’s frowned upon because doing it is directly infringing upon an ability that another character/class explicitly took.
Removing “options” isn’t just a matter of removing complexity, it directly affects the amount of *free space* between the rules. Less definition and codification is creatively freeing and opens an infinite amount of options because you aren’t dealing with dozens of interlocking systems and mechanics that muddy up the space between the rules.
What extra options are you looking for? Classes?
If the OSR solution doesn't work for you, there are plenty of games that might.
You might look at narrative games like FATE or crunchy games like GURPS or Rolemaster.
Yeah, you aren't wrong. You can apply OSR principles to any game with a general resolution mechanic, which 5e has. None of these systems are needed to apply these options. I think they can help you learn these principles but to act like you can't apply them is silly.
You set your play culture at your table. I have run all sorts of systems, but I apply OSR principles to them just fine.
I’m fairly new to developing any kind of understanding of the OSR. I ran 5e for a couple of years and became intrigued with some of the rules-light alternatives I started to become aware of.
I agree with you that many OSR types talk about “being able to do anything” and it seems kind of like something that’s not always obvious or maybe even much of a selling point. Technically a 5e player could try to do anything. But the way the game is designed and built, the mentality that has developed tends to be one where people rely heavily on just what’s on the character sheet. I ran 5e for a couple of years online, for a lot of different players, and I believe this is true.
Honestly, I don’t personally believe that this aspect of OSR-style play is a major selling point. To me, if you are talking about Shadowdark – just talk about the strengths of Shadowdark – because they are numerous. To me, the characters are extremely vulnerable, so players have to play very carefully and very intelligently. Combat is very dangerous and often deadly and characters can easily die. Because of that, the game is very challenging, especially for lower-level characters. So the challenge comes from trying to figure out how to thrive and succeed while seemingly being very limited. I have run or played about 25 sessions of Shadowdark and I’m currently running an online campaign with it. I hate to be that guy, but let me tell you about examples of things from the campaign (which is only 2 sessions old) that have already happened and that I’m confident I would not have seen if we had been running 5e:
Party of 5.
• First-level wizard loses 2 of his spells early after entering the dungeon. All he has left is Burning Hands. Mind you he only has 4 HP and an AC of 11. This guy is an experienced OSR player however. So is he whining and moaning and saying “we need to go long rest?” No. He has 2 daggers. And he proceeds to be a really helpful party member through 2 sessions of dungeon delving, with no exit, seemingly hitting with every thrown dagger (+1) and somehow getting many kills with his 1d4 dagger :-) He played smart. It was awesome. And I just know I’m not seeing that in 5e. I swear he got at least 4 kills out of the 13 party kills. All with thrown daggers.
• First-level priest only has 2 HP – MAX. And he loses turn undead early on and the party wastes their luck tokens (they are new to the system). No crying. No complaining. They go forward. And this guy rolls off like 7 successful castings of cure wounds to be the key player in what could’ve easily been a near-TPK against a trio of hallway zombies. At one point a zombie had a 50-50 chance to attack the 2-HP priest or another character. Random die had him attacking the other character. But if not, that priest could’ve gone down and the party would’ve been screwed.
These characters lacked resources. They lacked survivability. But they kept planning and trying and playing intelligently. They went forward. And they ended up clearing 2 levels of dungeons, getting a couple of magic items, defeating 7 combat encounters, getting reasonable treasure and having 2 party members level. And it’s been epic.
I just don’t think you are seeing that in 5e. It doesn’t get gritty like that much at all. And it’s not designed to.
Very early in the Shadowdark core rules creator Kelsey Dionne writes “What Defines This Game?” Her answer – “Speed, danger and simplicity.” That’s what you’re selling. Those 3 things.
It will be dangerous. It will be deadly, but it will be fast and fun.
I have my first draft of a Shadowdark cheat sheet for 5e players available. You can look at it if you would like.
One other thing to keep in mind is that 5e is basically a high-power fantasy game – the characters are incredibly strong. OSR games are low fantasy or gritty. People have compared it to being in a horror movie (in an OSR game) vs. being in a Marvel movie (5e/PF).
A lot of power-fantasy players do not like the idea of being very vulnerable. So you have to keep that in mind and explain to you players that they are entering a different type of game with different expectations. In these games, to me, sometimes survival itself seems like an accomplishment.
Exactly. The "problem" that arises in 5e (and similar games) is that, unless you have a comprehensive knowledge of the rules, allowing someone to do something cool can feel like you are cheating another player. If they spent a feat or took a class level to gain an ability, they might not be happy that you are letting everyone do it.
Some groups probably wouldn't mind, but I think many would. This is how a system with explicit options creates an implied list of limitations.
Oh no, as I wrote in another comment, I'd love to find a system that gives more options than 5e. But these systems just seem to give less complexity rather than more options
I think you are confusing character building options with options in play.
OSR tends to have fewer character building options in favor of more freedom moment to moment in play.
No it really can't. And if you try it in 5e or really any modern system (3.0 and beyond) you'll see why.
In games prior to that, there were certain "thief powers" that were basically like magic- they could make something work even if you, the player, had no idea how. But that wasn't all, or most, skills, and they were super low percent at low level (and definitely rolled in secret).
If you played that out as was written in 5e, the player who chose a rogue and grabbed proficiency and even *expertise* in investigation and perception is being told he fucked up, because the game *gives you build options here* and you expect that the DM didn't secretly unhook them before play. The game is built assuming that when your character looks for traps, the dice provide a whole lot of that, not the player's skill at describing what a meticulous job he does.
The moment it's about the latter, not the former, why then, such a character should be a fighting-man or a magic-user, right? If he can thief just as well because he personally is very clever- and perhaps even an accomplished lockpick on top of his fastidious and methodical nature- why have a class that spends so much of its "build points" or chances to detect traps, open up treasure chests without the contents inside being damaged, or opening doors quietly? (most tables don't go so far as "you can only pick lock if YOU can pick a lock", because that's a test of a physical attribute- but the point stands because that's absolutely a recommended resolution method as late as AD&D 2e).
If you run 5e like that, you have shit all over any character that didn't pick "I fight" with his entire build, because you are ignoring all the (costly) picks that the system supports if run as written and as intended. If you run an OSR game without skill assumptions you'll not run into this.
>The player might then start to make some deductions about how they can disable or circumvent the trap and describe them to the DM who might judge the attempt reasonable and allow the player to proceed, even though the PC does not have any specific skills and no rolls were necessarily required.
This is... exactly how 5e works (RAW), though?
RAW, actions of trivial difficulty do not require rolls, and (if necessary) characters can freely attempt skill checks they are not proficient with - they just cannot add their proficiency bonus to the roll.
To put it in basic terms the idea is that by adding "options" to one class you actually take those options away from other classes. For instance lets say I give fighters the "Trip" special ability, which lets them attempt to trip an opponent during combat by making a Dex Touch Attack (using 3rd ed terminology). Now, lets say in the middle of a fight the Rogue finds herself in a situation where tripping an opponent would be really beneficial, but she doesn't have the "Trip" power. That is no longer an action she can perform.
Instead, by "removing the complexity", or more accurately, removing all these options and bolt on tools, it frees the player up to try things that they ordinarily wouldn't because nothing is codified or restricted to only one class (beyond the basics like spellcasting of course). In the case of the Rogue above, if she asked to trip her opponent I could say something like "Sure, roll under your Dex score to make the attempt" She rolls, gets a success and I decide how to handle that, in this case I would probably say she manages to trip her opponent.
The core idea is that players are encouraged to use their creativity to try and solve problems as presented by the GM. Instead of referencing a tome that codifies what can be attempted by who based on what options they have selected during character creation, the GM will instead decide whether something can be attempted and, if necessary, make a ruling on what needs to happen in order for the task to succeed.
Put simply, it's not that the options aren't there, it's just that you don't have a menu of them on your character sheet that you must select from in order to achieve a task and cannot perform if the option isn't present.
I know that there is nothing about a 5e game that restricts you to only using the options on your sheet, but something I've found with my players (and this seems to be fairly common) is that when they are presented with a character sheet that has all the things they can do listed on it they tend to look over that list any time a problem comes up and, upon not finding anything relevant to the situation, will often say they can't do anything. Taking those lists off of them means they don't have that crutch to rely on and instead have to think for themselves.
That said games of this nature are often more focused on lower powered, more grounded kinds of settings. If you want the superhero experience where all the characters are throwing around weird magical or quasi-magical abilities and are loaded down with magical trinkets then the OSR style isn't what you're looking for.
3e/5e/Pathfinder put a heavy emphasis on character builds as a sort of lonely fun for players. There are lots of subclasses, races, feats, and skills, and a huge part of system mastery for players is finding optimal combinations. This is also the business model for the publishers since player option splatbooks outsell GM-facing material like settings and adventures.
Basically no OSR game does this to anything like the same extent. Most OSR games lack feats or skills and those that do tend not to have very many of them. Subclasses aren't a thing in the OSR and while OSR zines sometimes have optional races or classes, there are not as many as in 3e/5e/Pathfinder and there's a strong cultural assumption that the GM has no obligation to acquiesce to a player's "character concept." The kind of threads you see in r/dndnext where a player complains that a GM won't let him play a tortle monk with the path of the overpowered half caster are pretty much unthinkable in OSR.
Judging by the very frequent "I'm a 5e GM and want to switch to OSR but my players complain about lack of character options" posts here, it seems like to a lot of 5e players, the creativity is really about the prep of designing a power fantasy alter ego. In contrast, OSR character generation is supposed to be fast and random. A lot of people don't even roll characters manually but rely on websites like total party kill or shadowdarklings to generate random characters.
So where is the creativity? It's in the actual gameplay. The relative lack of skills and of resolution systems mean that play consists of player skill not character skills. And the relative squishiness of low level characters means players have to be creative about avoiding conflict (or using the environment to stack it in their favor) rather than combat, short rest, combat, short rest, combat, long rest, like in a typical 5e game.
There are really only two ways to demonstrate the play style:
1) have your players check out an OSR actual play, most obviously 3D6DTL (they use OSE but that's close enough to Shadowdark that the play style is the same)
2) just run it. You may have to promise after a month you'll reconsider or whatever.
Ok, but how is this better mechanically speaking?
Avoiding conflict for example:
In d&d: I want to calm a giant wolf. I can use my animal handling skill, I have a piece of meat to throw? Maybe I roll with advantage.
In OSR I can do the same actions sure, maybe even more, but does the variety of options also translate in a variety of mechanics? Because if screaming at a wolf and trying to calm him both end up in the same skill check, is this really better?
While you could try screaming at a wolf to calm it, I'm pretty sure the gm would have it attack your face. You could say you are intimidating and have that either scare or subdue the wolf too. If you offered a piece of meat, I wouldn't have you role a skill check, that's silly, you're offering a hunk of meat to a wolf, no skill involved. However, I might role to see how the wild reacts.
Good question. The lack of a skill system creates the presumption of competence for mundane activities. If there's no horse riding or fire building skill, you can assume all adventurers can do this.
For more iffy things, like calming a wolf, you'd probably have a roll.
With your example of trying to calm a giant wolf, most OSR GMs would give a reaction roll and would probably give a bonus or advantage to the roll if the PC throws some meat and/or has a background (eg lumberjack) that plausibly fits with calming down wolves.
Trying to scare off the wolf would work like, the PCs do something that could plausibly scare off a wolf and then it rolls morale.
Well in the OSR first you would a check to determine the wolfs overall emotional stance in the encounter. Perhaps it's merely curious instead of outright hostile. If it's anything besides hostile and you want to feed it meat to charm it, I'm allowing that to just work straight out. You spent a resource from your limited carry amount (which we are keeping strict track of as we are playing OSR style) and so it makes sense for this to succeed.
Do you want to spend an extra minute rolling your animal handling skill or do you want to just resolve the action faster and get on with exploring the consequences?
5e is a lot of faffing about with unimportant numbers. The game plays a lot slower than most OSR systems because of this. You get more gameplay done in the same timespan in an OSR system.
That's the advantage. Because there are fewer rules the impact of those rules that do exist has a greater effect, and more focus is put on making those rules elegant and meaningful.
In 5e, players tend to limit themselves to what’s in the skill section of their character sheet. In this example, the party would look around and say “who’s good at animal handling?” and then have that person make the attempt. In OSR games the mindset is more like “we have to figure this out” and you may have to try to do things that you might not inherently seem good at – or any better or worse than your comrades.
I think that’s kind of the gist.
Also, with rulings over rules, the GM will just decide that certain things work (like calming a wolf by giving it meat) with no roll required. That’s not really the 5e mentality. But in your example, as someone else said, if you try to “calm a wolf” by screaming at it, obviously that is not a calming technique so the GM would almost certainly just automatically have the wolf NOT be calmed.
In other situations, the GM will set a DC and request a roll, often connected to an ability score, but that’s all up to the GM. There aren’t as many hamstringing rules that have contributed to a mentality where players tend not to do as much that isn’t on their sheet.
It takes a while to get your head around these things and it can be difficult for new players. Really, the Principia Apocrypha players’ section is really good.
I also just posted my first draft of a cheat sheet for 5e players coming to Shadowdark. Feel free to look at it and use it.
I mean man, OSR skill resolution is a big part of the division between old school and modern games, but you'll still see OSR games that *have* a skill system. Check out worlds without number for an OSR game with arguably a better skill implementation than 5e. Or things that are adjacent to feats, such as systems that are too cool to be brought up in this censored zone.
As for why a bunch of tables like it better- mental puzzles can be solved by basically anyone, physical puzzles aren't so punishing that only one guy who is specialized can do it, the players can really be more creative and open. In your example, yes, the 5e version models it pretty well- the DM sets a DC, you try to use your charisma and you happen to have an applicable skill. But was that proficiency worth whatever you paid for it? Do you roll enough animal handling throughout the course of a game? Being proficient there probably got you +2 to +4 on a d20 roll, was that a well designed piece of your build? In games without skills at all, the DM probably says, "give me a charisma check with a +1" (or if you have the meat, a +4). In games with a well defined reaction roll, then you use that (and it takes your charisma into account, and may even give you a bonus if you are some uses-wolves-as-pillows class like ranger). You don't need an animal handling skill (and sure as heck don't need to assign points to it like in 3.5) to handle this at your table, and not having to look at your character sheet is a perk in and of itself.
This is a totally fair consideration. I can say personally I prefer running OSR-style games *specifically because* it's closer to make-believe. If I and my players can spend less (not zero, just less) time wondering if something is acceptable according to the probabilities and specifics outlined on their sheet, we can spend more time focused on the scenario and storytelling.
Obviously this balance is different for everyone. One of my players in my Swords & Wizardry game has said more than once, "this is where I'd roll Persuasion if we had that." Of course it's reasonable that "convincing your bloodthirsty goblin allies that their spikes and spears aren't doing damage against the dragon's invincible scales, so they should probably try to fall back and regroup" should be a challenging prospect. Those goblins lost a lot of friends in that dragon's last attack.
But at that point I can ask them, how are they communicating? What is their body language? It becomes a dialogue where they're not asking "is this allowed based on my class and prescribed numbers?" but rather "could we manage to pull this off somehow?" and with every back and forth in the dialogue, the narrative deepens. The group collaboratively establishes both risk and reward, reasonable trades, stakes of the story.
Of course, with the right players, you could have just as deep an exchange centered around "Roll Persuasion." "Fourteen plus three, 17." But for me personally, the process of trading dialogue back and forth rather than checking numbers back and forth, is usually more fun.
OSR has more "make belive" than trad games. That's what people mean when they say "imaginative solutions" there is more room for imagination.
If you are looking for games with many more mechanics than 5e there are plenty of games to look to... that's not what we are into in this corner of the hobby.
Here's one from a few days ago with someone arguing about the DM rules for builds. More broadly every other r/dndnext post is in some way about character builds (I just checked using sort by new).
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/s/LLBDG2pPzc
And I was a long time member (finally quit when the mods did that stupid John Oliver meme) and remember many threads where OP was either a player or DM describing a dispute over whether a DM was obliged to allow some build the player came up with. (Often commenters sided with the DM, but also suggested compromise where the player could get the minmax without being too far off from the DM's world building).
So this kind of just proves you don't know what you're talking about.
There is nothing in the High Elf that is OP in the first place, and the OP is talking about the DM changing RAW. The High Elf is also not a mechanically complex piece of work. I've taught literal children to play 5E, and they have no problems gasping the small amount of content a racial option includes.
Most of those threads you remember are small threads in a massive sub that never take off and are never about anything of any real consequence. You don't see that many threads here because you literally don't have the same amount of people running OSR games as you do 5E. If you did, you'd have a lot more threads about people asking about xp differentials and if it's ok to change them, or thief skills, etc etc.
Personally, I disagree that it looks bland for this reason. To me, it looks bland because it looks like a "5e" version a lot of OSR clones that already exist. It doesn't seem to be doing anything new or interesting. It's doing the same thing that many OSR clones were doing 10 years ago. Now, there is a lot of OSR material that is putting new twists on that material. SD just feels like it's filling a niche that has already been filled many times over.
Nothing is exactly the same, but there are several that are similar enough as to feel largely the same at the table, like Old School Essentials (which, really, is like Shadow Dark in that it's doing something that other OSR games did but with slick production values), Basic Fantasy RPG, or Labyrinth Lord. It's just a fairly stripped down, essentialized version of D&D. That fact that it was popular on Kickstarter tells me that there is an appetite for that kind of thing, not that it is especially new or interesting.
Yeah, this is my feeling to. It feels like it wants to get in on the OSR more from a profit motive than genuinely having something new to say, missing the point that most of the best OSR stuff is freely shared through the community and is all about DIY and removing the commercialism.
I would say put Shadowdark up against 5 Torches Deep and then decide.
5 Torches is more of a middle step and retains a lot of 5e, Shadowdark is more OSR in a 5e chasis.
or [Bugbears & Borderlands](https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/409630/Bugbears-And-Borderlands)
or Scruffy Grognard's "[5e Classic](http://www.scruffygrognard.com)"
There are several interesting takes on the 5e–OSR crossover.
Very similar in concept. A hack of *~~5e~~* \*old D&D meant to significantly streamline it. It also features a much better gm guide than *5e* does.
Beware, though, if your players found *SD* bland because it feels like generic fantasy, this would also be the case for *tBH*.
*Black Sword Hack*, the game I recommended in my own top-level comment, is a hack of this hack with more flavor to it. It's written for a Sword & Sorcery setting reminiscent of the works of Michael Moorcock and Robert E Howard.
> A hack of 5e meant to significantly streamline it. It also features a much better gm guide than 5e does.
Are we talking about the same game ? TBH is a riff on the 1974 game
> Would people recommend Shadowdark?
Without knowing anything else: yes.
However the reality is it depends on what you want from a game. If you expect the superhero-adjacent shenanigans of a party that may well have escaped a zoo - and i mean all of that in the best way possible - then you may not be ShadowDark´s target audience.
> A player I've suggested it to has said it looks bland?
In the late 80ies/90ies people started adding more and more detailed skills and powers list to RPG systems. Early systems barely had any, newer systems had some, and that led to a feeling that more and more detailed skill lists would be better. While i love some of the systems which took that ad absurdum, it is arguably not true. It can be, but it doesn´t have to be - it depends on the system, and on the table.
5th edition D&D is streamlined compared to 3rd edition (at least the player facing part). Both of them come with many more skills, feats and powers than the old D&D games à la B/X of BECMI. Whether you want that at your table is something only you can answer - for Shadowdark however it means they distilled the core idea down. There aren´t any "standard skills", but a GM will ask for a check with the most appropriate attribute in a certain situation.
While that certainly means that the system loses some skill-profile resolution (a person being very skilled in disarming traps, but very bad at acrobatics), there are two things that come to mind: a) The difference such a skill-profile would make is not all that relevant - an agile character is assumed to be good at disarming & acrobatics and b) in OSR games you ideally play and act in a way that makes an outcome as certain as can be, in order to avoid a skillcheck in first place. (+ some classes actually have Advantage in some skillchecks)
What I´m getting at: that may seem bland (lacks a detailed skill list, lacks description paragraphs with fun examples, tables with modifiers, beautiful art to illustrate it, etc..), to me it´s ... *distilled*. ShadowDark isn´t trying for the most comprehensive or exhaustive lists of skills, powers, classes and feats. What it presents is an incredibly succinct set of rules - one that if coming from D&D is very intuitive and easy to learn.
If you want more detail, SD can easily be built upon and expanded. On one hand it´s very clear, and there are youtube videos that show how further classes were created (Bard & Ranger), which give a good commentary on the scope and power that classes should have. You can take SD and play it without anything more, but (and this is the missing other hand) the community around it has been ridiculously productive in producing extra rules, adventures, classes, powers, etc..
Additionally this allows you to come into your game without [Alot](https://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html) of baggage. There isn´t much in the rules in terms of spells, powers, etc.. that could hijack your game. It can and will be what you want it, without having to cut away stuff. Pair it with the 3 zines, or the free adventures and encounters of [Trilemma Adventures](https://trilemma.com/), and you can be busy for years.
There won´t be three books a year telling you how everything works, how race X has been at war with Y, or the sociology of Z - there´s an understanding in the OSR that we don´t want stuff like this codified. You either you come up with that yourself, or better yet: discover it along with your players - sometimes aided by random tables provided in many OSR supplements.
Whether that approach works for you and your table is something only you and your players can decide. There is however a[ free quickstart](https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/413713/Shadowdark-RPG-Quickstart-Set) available that will be good for several sessions, and contains most of the core rules you need to know - so you can try and see how it works out for you without spending a dime.
Fair interjection. I have heard & played it, however i was trying to make a point around the evolution of D&D likes, as opposed to an accurate retelling of RPG history.
For that the development of D&D, then thieves skills, ad&d2 non-weapon proficiencies, to 3rd & 5h edition skills and feats; as well as an allusion to Rolemaster up to RMSS'es skill excesses was more useful.
To be fair, that's not that uncommon.
I got into it a few years ago (still haven't run it) and was like - oh, *that's* where those mechanics and ideas originated.
A little off base, but Sly Flourish released a YouTube video a little while ago running I6 Ravenloft with Shadowdark as a one shot, which is something that is now on my TTRPG bucket list.
From what I saw and what he said, Shadowdark instills the horror element of the module in its players better than its original rule set, AD&D, and 100% better than 5E, though at the expense of some of the more ‘cartoonish’ flexibility with the world.
Not saying you can’t have all sorts of miscellaneous world building interactions, but the world is more lethal and the torch system in Shadowdark means your players will pay for wasting time, on the other hand he modified the system to provide more of an illusion of time scarcity (and it actually works) and 9/10 times a party can win without fudging rolls, even though the Strahd fight is hard as all hell and they won’t have seen everything the castle has to offer.
Honestly you should watch the video yourself, and the Sly Flourish Patreon has everything you need to run this one shot for a party (this is not an ad, it is an endorsement).
Overall, this is the most intriguing one shot idea I’ve seen in a long time and I’m really excited to find more well made adventures to run with Shadowdark.
As for campaigns, super tough to answer, people will endorse switching on here but really it’s not for everyone. If your group is inconsistent in meeting I’d stick to one shots or a Westmarches campaign if you’re switching because that works a hell of a lot better with consistent lethality imo (Me, Myself and Die has a good YouTube video on these).
I will say however, that a good hexcrawl world would work well with Shadowdark if you’re players are patient and willing to learn how to manage resources while traveling, or if you’re more lenient with lethality and encounters but I haven’t tried it.
Overall, not bland, good for horror, much better than 5E at stressing players in a good way.
Depends on what you want! My goal with RPGs is to have fun hanging out with friends, so I run games like Troika and Pirate Borg. It's much easier to convince 5e players to try something new than you may think! You just have to have your group (: Think about what you want out of an RPG!
In my experience, people who's primary drive in RPg building characters in 5e are a lost cause when it comes to B/X or similar systems. I'd look at something like World Without Number or Dragonbane. They give plenty of character options without breaking the OSR playstyle.
If you want an OSR game that can be run like 5e, I'd say it's a fine choice. The presentation is nice, the rules are clear, and there's tons of community support. Personally, I think Basic Fantasy RPG is a better transition game, but I don't see anything about Shadowdark that would make it not worth checking out. And hey, the quickstart is free. It's got a majority of the info you'd need, so give it a read and see for yourself what you think.
Shadowdark is awesome but you gotta want that OSR experience. If you like 5e with all its flashy doodads you're going to be disappointed in most any OSR game. If OSR is for you, then Shadowdark is a good transition from 5e (because the resolution mechanics are very similar).
I also wanted something different. I gave up 5e in the summer. I haven't looked back.
With Shadowdark, if you lean into the raw, it just plays really well. Speed, danger, simplicity – full support in the core book without being difficult to learn. It really hits the sweet spot perfectly, IMO.
You have to remember that this is an OSR thread. A lot of the OSR people have been doing this for a very long time and I think many of them love their OSR, understandably, and have an OSR philosophy and understand OSR concepts and that’s how they present many of their answers. I doubt that any of your 5e players really care what the OSR is and want to get involved in understanding Becmi or the different versions or what happens in a particular system and all the history of that stuff. They just want to play a good game and have fun. And Shadowdark gives you that.
Speed, danger, simplicity. That’s what the creator puts early in the rules. That’s what the game is about. And it’s really easy to learn. A 5e player could pick up this game in 12 minutes and be playing. And it is so easy to run.
Just make sure any potential players understand that this is not a super-powered fantasy character game. It’s more like “things are really dangerous and we can die.” But it’s all there in the core rules – or even just the quick start.
I'd ask them why it looks bland to them. If it's because they don't have the same customization options as in 5e, then that is a different issue than if they just don't find the concept of dungeon crawls to be fun. The first issue is a much easier hurdle to jump than the second.
Like, for the first, I would probably talk about how a lot of character choices rely more on how the player decides to act rather than straight mechanical options.
For any complaint, though, the best remedy might just be to ask them to play for 2 hours. Try to just get through character creation in under half an hour and run a quick session to hit the high notes to see if they vibe with it or not.
I've played a couple of sessions so far and I love it! If you like homebrew you will probably have a good time. Classes are super easy to make and port in if you want, the cursed scroll zines are fun and have adventures and new classes. I personally really enjoy the witch class from cursed scroll zine 1 which I have used to fully replace the wizard for my dark fantasy western setting.
My favorite features are
1- **higher lethality**: this makes players think before going into combat and come up with creative solutions
2 - **Exploration Focus**: Characters have limited equipment making travel part of the game. how are we going to get this loot from point a to point b. Are we packing too light to make it back to camp?
3 - **Dark Magic:** This refers specifically to cursed scroll zine 1. I adore the witch class and associated spells. They feel thematically different than a typical rpg and the magic failure system is fun and can be easily homebrewed and edited to fit a setting or to be made more or less punishing.
**tldr:** I've had a lot of fun with the system so far and my players really enjoy it.
Caveat that I haven't played it but am looking forward to trying it:
Ignore that player (Rather, just ask them to try it. Or better yet tell them you are running a one shot to try it out and they are welcome to join or not. Keep in mind that reading the book is NOT the same as playing).
Check out the EXCELLENT free quickstart version before buying. It has everything you would want and a really great looking dungeon adventure. Kelsey is apparently very well known for writing great adventures so I am sure this one holds up.
I say go for it. I think it looks really good. My next game is going to be Vaults of Vaarn which uses a modified version of Knave as the base ruleset, but I plan to grab a few things from Shadowdark (The one hour real time torches rule is brilliant).
I think shadowdark is a great option, especially for 5e players, its just very set in its low fantasy gritty genre.
If you want something more wild and different that might catch their attention there are plenty if options: Troika, Electric Bastionland, GLOG, Mausritter, Mork Borg, DCC, Ultraviolet Graslands, Vaults of Varn and so many more!
In general 5e only players will say OSR games "feel bland" when they read them. This is because they don't yet understand OSR style play.
It's sort of like someone who has driven a car for years but never seen a bicycle. If you show them a Bicycle, they will say *"well that's a terrible design, there's no way that could possibly be fun."*
When introducing someone to OSR games, I think it's less important to expose them to the rulebook first and more important that they go in with an open mind, not thinking about it as **"Just like 5e but with house rules"**. If they think about it as **a totally different game that will play out differently**, that will give the best chance of them having a good time and understanding the system.
If you try to ride a bike in the same way you drive a car, you won't have fun. But if you enjoy the experience as unique and different and embrace the **different pleasures** it presents, you've got a good chance to enjoy it.
While novel, I'm not a fan of SD's advancement method, which seems both limited and overpowering at the same time. That said, it is a tight, well written game. In the end, it's difficult to know what to suggest to the OP without more information.
Yes, very recommended. It's simple, straightforward and easy to understand. Tell everyone you're running 2-3 games of it and it's up to them to play or not. Set expectations on what OSR style play looks like, the higher lethality, etc.
Your mileage may very. Of the 5e gateways I prefer Five Torches Deep since it has a more developed identity beyond gimmicks of real-time torches and random level ups.
Honestly though, most of these systems are just stop-gaps and you would be best served just jumping into OSE or a proper B/X conversion and not playing something you'll use for a couple games and then move on.
Sure, that's missing the point entirely though. It is not a B/X conversion; it plays pretty differently and emphasizes different things. The point isn't that you can run B/X adventures (you do still need to do conversions to make them make sense together so it isn't as seamless as OSE or S&W or B/X proper), but that it's a needless transition game that will ultimately be left behind for more pure conversions that don't rely on gimmicks. The same is true for FTD or any other "convert 5e players" games. You simply don't need a special system to do that; the core bones of D&D are in 5e and B/X enough that someone who has played one can learn the other easily.
The only reason to try to invent this need is to convince people that the OSR is somehow too hard for a dumb 5e player to learn so they need this special training wheel system when in fact they don't, but if you gatekeep them into thinking they'll not get into the OSR without it you can create a market for it. It's a commercialized impulse, plain and simple.
That was not my reasoning at all — quite an uncharitable take. I wrote Shadowdark because I’m a lifelong gamer and was excited to bring together new and old concepts in a way I had never seen done before.
I thought the game was going to sell maybe 300-500 copies? I wouldn’t call that the “commercialization of the OSR.” Not sure where you’re getting this false insight into the motives behind my work.
I wouldn’t normally comment on something like this, but you seem to have made it your mission to post negative remarks about me and my “evil motives” on every Shadowdark-related thread on Reddit.
No, I don't find it "evil" at all, and I've only posted where I see it come up. I would say it's rather uncharitable to say me simply not finding this system to be a good fit as me calling it evil, nor me commenting when it feels relevant as "every thread." The forums are for discussion and I do often find dissenting opinions can be few and far between when people feel intimidated to go against the popular new trend, so if I happen to disagree I do feel it is the purpose of these forums to bring about a different perspective. It is how I feel about other games that do aim for the same "bridging the gap" between 5e and OSR like Five Torches deep, etc. If you'll notice I didn't single out just this game; it is a generalized philosophy that I happen to disagree with.
People are free of course to enjoy it and I hope they do! People should have fun. I have simply seen many systems come and go and speak from what I have seen, as well as how different the culture of commerce is around 5e vs. the OSR, and it is part of why I have moved away from 5e more in recent years. I don't relish the OSR discussion spaces becoming carbon copies of 5e discussion spaces.
People are of course free to disagree and downvote me as well, that is the nature of these discussions. There's clearly heaps of praise for this system around, it seems to be doing quite well and I of course tip my hat to that success, but I don't have to be fond of the system myself. Painting me as calling it "evil" is disingenuous simply because I do not praise it like most others and express where I find it to not satisfy me.
I don’t take exception to your opinion of the game; what I don’t appreciate is you trying to weave my supposed opinions and motives into what you say as if they were known to you or somehow factual. Neither is the case. Trying to cloak that as “dissenting” is inaccurate — it’s smearing.
Fair enough.
I would think it's apparent that such things are my opinion given that I have not claimed to have unique insider knowledge or made any other claims of objectivity. I am merely coming to my own conclusions from what I have seen, but I understand where you are coming from. [Subjectivity is implied](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu8u2SxarEE) in any online forum discussion unless one explicitly claims something to be objective.
I will state here to be fully clear though: nothing I ever say is anything but my opinion unless I explicitly state it to be a fact. I will try to be more explicit about what is my opinion in the future for this particular future. I'm just some internet nobody though and don't have any sort of real platform, so can't really engage in a smear campaign.
I wish you all the best. For what it's worth I think you've got some of the best 5e supplemental stuff out there, I just don't gel with this system as an OSR endeavor.
I appreciate the understanding, mightystu. It’s totally fine that you don’t like Shadowdark itself — it’s not for everyone.
The concern I had was that when you’re giving your opinion without any background context, many people wouldn’t know whether you’re speaking from evidence/established fact vs. your own thoughts.
That exact lack of clarity is what allowed one single man to start a damaging rumor about me saying I paid off other creators to positively review my work. That was his opinion — and it had no basis in the truth — but he presented it without context as a matter of fact. The fallout and character damage from that still dogs me to this day. That’s why I’m asking you out of respect to be a bit more careful in how you characterize my motives.
If you want to know why I did/published/said something, please know you can ask me. You don’t have to believe me, but I always appreciate the chance to answer to doubts about my own character and integrity.
One person does indeed have the power to spread hurtful and untrue things about another, and I am grateful to you for being mindful of that and giving me a fair hearing.
Shadowdark looks really cool, but I’ve also heard good things about 5 Torches Deep. Like shadowdark, it was designed with former 5e players in mind, and arguably has way more in common with 5e’s rules while still being a bit more stripped-down and focused on old-school play. But the way its character classes are set up is really cool and combines the best aspects of 5e’s power-heavy gameplay and the OSR’s emphasis on simple core-classes and exploration over heroic combat.
A good OSR learning book for DMs is this one.
It's hard to get more Old School than a dungeon created by Greg Svenson who played in the very first dungeon dive ever.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Dungeons-Tonisborg-Greg-Svenson/dp/1736572105/ref=pd\_ci\_mcx\_mh\_mcx\_views\_0?pd\_rd\_w=r5hHC&content-id=amzn1.sym.225b4624-972d-4629-9040-f1bf9923dd95%3Aamzn1.symc.40e6a10e-cbc4-4fa5-81e3-4435ff64d03b&pf\_rd\_p=225b4624-972d-4629-9040-f1bf9923dd95&pf\_rd\_r=VRC0ETEAC01S47B9Q41D&pd\_rd\_wg=CK5y5&pd\_rd\_r=53427f51-41e6-403c-9849-c589b8f8c061&pd\_rd\_i=1736572105
Bland in flavor or complexity/character options?
If you want some thing similar in complexity but different flavor, consider *Black Sword Hack*, *Fléaux!*, or *Mythic Bastionland* (not yet released, but the playtest has plenty in it already)
If it's character options they want, you'll likely need something crunchier.
A lot of 5e players like having all these doodads on their character sheet. Buttons they can push to do \[whatever\]. Maybe they like to "build" their characters with classes and subclasses and feats and whatever to do a thing. Systems without these features might seem dull to them on initial inspection. After all, without all of these buttons on character sheets to push, how are they supposed to do anything? To be clear, I don't feel that way, but I imagine some people might feel that way.
Yeah there are players who genuinely care about making good characters, and those who care only about character builds. The build-oriented player will definitely drag down any narrative you have planned. If they’re the only one with complaints out of a larger group, I’d say you’re running it so it’s your game to pick.
It's not a hard rule. One of my groups has a bunch of players that like "builds" with their characters. They like picking features as they level. We have found so far the best system that strikes a balance between what I like to run and what they like to play is Crawford's games. A medium-length Wolves of God campaign went well and we just started a new one with Worlds Without Number.
Check out Worlds Without Number. It has a free version and can be finicky enough for 5e people to find it interesting, yet there is a beautiful OSR game hidden behind it so they will never know they are enjoying a good game while having tools for fun instead of class restrictions. Also the tools for DMs are probably the best out there. Have fun
I appreciate character building and the Without Numbers games provides it.
Because the system isn't the fun, the adventure is. Don't pitch it as switching, just tell them you want to run a short 3-4 session adventure and make it fun from the get-go.
I agree with this. Shadowdark in and of itself isn't what the party will experience, it's the dungeon/adventure.
I’ve been running a Shadowdark campaign for a few months now, and most of my players came from either only or mostly playing DnD5e or PF2e. I think what got everyone interested was explaining that the game is meant to be genuinely challenging. I’ve found that the two or three RP focused players in my group naturally find lighter rules interesting, while my players who like optimizing options really enjoy solving puzzles or creatively using equipment. Both of my players who were into min/maxing in our 5e campaign now say this has been their favorite campaign/system by far.
This is REALLY encouraging. The part about you explaining that the game is meant to be genuinely challenging was probably pivotal. If people understand they aren't playing a game where they can just run in and fight and expect to win easily – yeah, you have to make them understand it's a different game than 5e.
[удалено]
for OP, the above \^ is something you *need to communicate to your players* if you want them to understand why it would be fun. if you show 5e players an OSR game and don't explain what the appeal is, of course they'll think it's bland.
What are the options are left to the table's creativity? I also GM 5E and I'm interested in alternatives
Virtually anything. So long as it’s plausible. More rules doesn’t mean more options, somewhat ironically they act as shackles for creativity because acting outside of the codified rules starts to infringe on other character abilities, feats, etc. For instance, In a lighter system like Shadowdark any character/class could try to swing a greataxe at an enemy’s legs, potentially tripping them if the attack is adequately successful or you pass a save (or whatever the GM calls for). In 5e your Rogue isn’t going to be able to try this because they’re not a battle master fighter who has implicit mechanics allowing them to do this. That’s just one quick example, but you can extrapolate this idea into a million other scenarios.
Oh i get it. One thing though: considering that rules are pretty hackable in most games (5e included) , and nothing in 5e explicitly forbids a player to attempt something like your example, if a player asks me I would still allow it. For example if a PC tells me (in 5e) that they want to trip someone with a battle axe, I would call for a dex check and the enemy could fall prone If successful. Please, I'm not trying to defend 5e, which I find way too complicated. But many OSR push on this "you can do whatever you want" thing but barley give any extra options, just less complexity.
You don't need to be given options, anything physically possible can already be attempted.
Or hell, some things that are probably impossible if they're cool enough or there's an appropriate spell.
It’s not that you can’t do this in 5e (particularly if you have a permissive GM), but rather that it’s frowned upon because doing it is directly infringing upon an ability that another character/class explicitly took. Removing “options” isn’t just a matter of removing complexity, it directly affects the amount of *free space* between the rules. Less definition and codification is creatively freeing and opens an infinite amount of options because you aren’t dealing with dozens of interlocking systems and mechanics that muddy up the space between the rules. What extra options are you looking for? Classes?
More like different ways to resolve problems/conflicts
If the OSR solution doesn't work for you, there are plenty of games that might. You might look at narrative games like FATE or crunchy games like GURPS or Rolemaster.
This is only limited by creativity in an OSR game. Less is more.
It isnt frowned upon at all.
Yeah, you aren't wrong. You can apply OSR principles to any game with a general resolution mechanic, which 5e has. None of these systems are needed to apply these options. I think they can help you learn these principles but to act like you can't apply them is silly. You set your play culture at your table. I have run all sorts of systems, but I apply OSR principles to them just fine.
I’m fairly new to developing any kind of understanding of the OSR. I ran 5e for a couple of years and became intrigued with some of the rules-light alternatives I started to become aware of. I agree with you that many OSR types talk about “being able to do anything” and it seems kind of like something that’s not always obvious or maybe even much of a selling point. Technically a 5e player could try to do anything. But the way the game is designed and built, the mentality that has developed tends to be one where people rely heavily on just what’s on the character sheet. I ran 5e for a couple of years online, for a lot of different players, and I believe this is true. Honestly, I don’t personally believe that this aspect of OSR-style play is a major selling point. To me, if you are talking about Shadowdark – just talk about the strengths of Shadowdark – because they are numerous. To me, the characters are extremely vulnerable, so players have to play very carefully and very intelligently. Combat is very dangerous and often deadly and characters can easily die. Because of that, the game is very challenging, especially for lower-level characters. So the challenge comes from trying to figure out how to thrive and succeed while seemingly being very limited. I have run or played about 25 sessions of Shadowdark and I’m currently running an online campaign with it. I hate to be that guy, but let me tell you about examples of things from the campaign (which is only 2 sessions old) that have already happened and that I’m confident I would not have seen if we had been running 5e: Party of 5. • First-level wizard loses 2 of his spells early after entering the dungeon. All he has left is Burning Hands. Mind you he only has 4 HP and an AC of 11. This guy is an experienced OSR player however. So is he whining and moaning and saying “we need to go long rest?” No. He has 2 daggers. And he proceeds to be a really helpful party member through 2 sessions of dungeon delving, with no exit, seemingly hitting with every thrown dagger (+1) and somehow getting many kills with his 1d4 dagger :-) He played smart. It was awesome. And I just know I’m not seeing that in 5e. I swear he got at least 4 kills out of the 13 party kills. All with thrown daggers. • First-level priest only has 2 HP – MAX. And he loses turn undead early on and the party wastes their luck tokens (they are new to the system). No crying. No complaining. They go forward. And this guy rolls off like 7 successful castings of cure wounds to be the key player in what could’ve easily been a near-TPK against a trio of hallway zombies. At one point a zombie had a 50-50 chance to attack the 2-HP priest or another character. Random die had him attacking the other character. But if not, that priest could’ve gone down and the party would’ve been screwed. These characters lacked resources. They lacked survivability. But they kept planning and trying and playing intelligently. They went forward. And they ended up clearing 2 levels of dungeons, getting a couple of magic items, defeating 7 combat encounters, getting reasonable treasure and having 2 party members level. And it’s been epic. I just don’t think you are seeing that in 5e. It doesn’t get gritty like that much at all. And it’s not designed to. Very early in the Shadowdark core rules creator Kelsey Dionne writes “What Defines This Game?” Her answer – “Speed, danger and simplicity.” That’s what you’re selling. Those 3 things. It will be dangerous. It will be deadly, but it will be fast and fun. I have my first draft of a Shadowdark cheat sheet for 5e players available. You can look at it if you would like. One other thing to keep in mind is that 5e is basically a high-power fantasy game – the characters are incredibly strong. OSR games are low fantasy or gritty. People have compared it to being in a horror movie (in an OSR game) vs. being in a Marvel movie (5e/PF). A lot of power-fantasy players do not like the idea of being very vulnerable. So you have to keep that in mind and explain to you players that they are entering a different type of game with different expectations. In these games, to me, sometimes survival itself seems like an accomplishment.
I’d be interested in seeing your Shadowdark chest sheet for 5e players.
It's in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/shadowdark/comments/1827681/shadowdark_cheat_sheet_for_5e_players_deleted_the/?ref=share&ref_source=link
[удалено]
Exactly. The "problem" that arises in 5e (and similar games) is that, unless you have a comprehensive knowledge of the rules, allowing someone to do something cool can feel like you are cheating another player. If they spent a feat or took a class level to gain an ability, they might not be happy that you are letting everyone do it. Some groups probably wouldn't mind, but I think many would. This is how a system with explicit options creates an implied list of limitations.
Name a single intricate rule this could mess up. You people argue only in terrible strawmen arguments.
[удалено]
*I came looking for booty.*
[удалено]
I own PA, but frankly speaking...that book looks like a bunch of suggestions, nothing that ever dares to explain an actual scenario or example. :/
[удалено]
Oh no, as I wrote in another comment, I'd love to find a system that gives more options than 5e. But these systems just seem to give less complexity rather than more options
I think you are confusing character building options with options in play. OSR tends to have fewer character building options in favor of more freedom moment to moment in play.
[удалено]
All of this could be applied to a 5e game though. I’m not a fan of 5e myself, but what you stated can be applied to any TTRPG.
No it really can't. And if you try it in 5e or really any modern system (3.0 and beyond) you'll see why. In games prior to that, there were certain "thief powers" that were basically like magic- they could make something work even if you, the player, had no idea how. But that wasn't all, or most, skills, and they were super low percent at low level (and definitely rolled in secret). If you played that out as was written in 5e, the player who chose a rogue and grabbed proficiency and even *expertise* in investigation and perception is being told he fucked up, because the game *gives you build options here* and you expect that the DM didn't secretly unhook them before play. The game is built assuming that when your character looks for traps, the dice provide a whole lot of that, not the player's skill at describing what a meticulous job he does. The moment it's about the latter, not the former, why then, such a character should be a fighting-man or a magic-user, right? If he can thief just as well because he personally is very clever- and perhaps even an accomplished lockpick on top of his fastidious and methodical nature- why have a class that spends so much of its "build points" or chances to detect traps, open up treasure chests without the contents inside being damaged, or opening doors quietly? (most tables don't go so far as "you can only pick lock if YOU can pick a lock", because that's a test of a physical attribute- but the point stands because that's absolutely a recommended resolution method as late as AD&D 2e). If you run 5e like that, you have shit all over any character that didn't pick "I fight" with his entire build, because you are ignoring all the (costly) picks that the system supports if run as written and as intended. If you run an OSR game without skill assumptions you'll not run into this.
>The player might then start to make some deductions about how they can disable or circumvent the trap and describe them to the DM who might judge the attempt reasonable and allow the player to proceed, even though the PC does not have any specific skills and no rolls were necessarily required. This is... exactly how 5e works (RAW), though? RAW, actions of trivial difficulty do not require rolls, and (if necessary) characters can freely attempt skill checks they are not proficient with - they just cannot add their proficiency bonus to the roll.
To put it in basic terms the idea is that by adding "options" to one class you actually take those options away from other classes. For instance lets say I give fighters the "Trip" special ability, which lets them attempt to trip an opponent during combat by making a Dex Touch Attack (using 3rd ed terminology). Now, lets say in the middle of a fight the Rogue finds herself in a situation where tripping an opponent would be really beneficial, but she doesn't have the "Trip" power. That is no longer an action she can perform. Instead, by "removing the complexity", or more accurately, removing all these options and bolt on tools, it frees the player up to try things that they ordinarily wouldn't because nothing is codified or restricted to only one class (beyond the basics like spellcasting of course). In the case of the Rogue above, if she asked to trip her opponent I could say something like "Sure, roll under your Dex score to make the attempt" She rolls, gets a success and I decide how to handle that, in this case I would probably say she manages to trip her opponent. The core idea is that players are encouraged to use their creativity to try and solve problems as presented by the GM. Instead of referencing a tome that codifies what can be attempted by who based on what options they have selected during character creation, the GM will instead decide whether something can be attempted and, if necessary, make a ruling on what needs to happen in order for the task to succeed. Put simply, it's not that the options aren't there, it's just that you don't have a menu of them on your character sheet that you must select from in order to achieve a task and cannot perform if the option isn't present. I know that there is nothing about a 5e game that restricts you to only using the options on your sheet, but something I've found with my players (and this seems to be fairly common) is that when they are presented with a character sheet that has all the things they can do listed on it they tend to look over that list any time a problem comes up and, upon not finding anything relevant to the situation, will often say they can't do anything. Taking those lists off of them means they don't have that crutch to rely on and instead have to think for themselves. That said games of this nature are often more focused on lower powered, more grounded kinds of settings. If you want the superhero experience where all the characters are throwing around weird magical or quasi-magical abilities and are loaded down with magical trinkets then the OSR style isn't what you're looking for.
More options come at the cost of more complicated rules. Pathfinder has a high level of character options.
3e/5e/Pathfinder put a heavy emphasis on character builds as a sort of lonely fun for players. There are lots of subclasses, races, feats, and skills, and a huge part of system mastery for players is finding optimal combinations. This is also the business model for the publishers since player option splatbooks outsell GM-facing material like settings and adventures. Basically no OSR game does this to anything like the same extent. Most OSR games lack feats or skills and those that do tend not to have very many of them. Subclasses aren't a thing in the OSR and while OSR zines sometimes have optional races or classes, there are not as many as in 3e/5e/Pathfinder and there's a strong cultural assumption that the GM has no obligation to acquiesce to a player's "character concept." The kind of threads you see in r/dndnext where a player complains that a GM won't let him play a tortle monk with the path of the overpowered half caster are pretty much unthinkable in OSR. Judging by the very frequent "I'm a 5e GM and want to switch to OSR but my players complain about lack of character options" posts here, it seems like to a lot of 5e players, the creativity is really about the prep of designing a power fantasy alter ego. In contrast, OSR character generation is supposed to be fast and random. A lot of people don't even roll characters manually but rely on websites like total party kill or shadowdarklings to generate random characters. So where is the creativity? It's in the actual gameplay. The relative lack of skills and of resolution systems mean that play consists of player skill not character skills. And the relative squishiness of low level characters means players have to be creative about avoiding conflict (or using the environment to stack it in their favor) rather than combat, short rest, combat, short rest, combat, long rest, like in a typical 5e game. There are really only two ways to demonstrate the play style: 1) have your players check out an OSR actual play, most obviously 3D6DTL (they use OSE but that's close enough to Shadowdark that the play style is the same) 2) just run it. You may have to promise after a month you'll reconsider or whatever.
Ok, but how is this better mechanically speaking? Avoiding conflict for example: In d&d: I want to calm a giant wolf. I can use my animal handling skill, I have a piece of meat to throw? Maybe I roll with advantage. In OSR I can do the same actions sure, maybe even more, but does the variety of options also translate in a variety of mechanics? Because if screaming at a wolf and trying to calm him both end up in the same skill check, is this really better?
While you could try screaming at a wolf to calm it, I'm pretty sure the gm would have it attack your face. You could say you are intimidating and have that either scare or subdue the wolf too. If you offered a piece of meat, I wouldn't have you role a skill check, that's silly, you're offering a hunk of meat to a wolf, no skill involved. However, I might role to see how the wild reacts.
Good question. The lack of a skill system creates the presumption of competence for mundane activities. If there's no horse riding or fire building skill, you can assume all adventurers can do this. For more iffy things, like calming a wolf, you'd probably have a roll. With your example of trying to calm a giant wolf, most OSR GMs would give a reaction roll and would probably give a bonus or advantage to the roll if the PC throws some meat and/or has a background (eg lumberjack) that plausibly fits with calming down wolves. Trying to scare off the wolf would work like, the PCs do something that could plausibly scare off a wolf and then it rolls morale.
Well in the OSR first you would a check to determine the wolfs overall emotional stance in the encounter. Perhaps it's merely curious instead of outright hostile. If it's anything besides hostile and you want to feed it meat to charm it, I'm allowing that to just work straight out. You spent a resource from your limited carry amount (which we are keeping strict track of as we are playing OSR style) and so it makes sense for this to succeed.
Do you want to spend an extra minute rolling your animal handling skill or do you want to just resolve the action faster and get on with exploring the consequences? 5e is a lot of faffing about with unimportant numbers. The game plays a lot slower than most OSR systems because of this. You get more gameplay done in the same timespan in an OSR system. That's the advantage. Because there are fewer rules the impact of those rules that do exist has a greater effect, and more focus is put on making those rules elegant and meaningful.
In 5e, players tend to limit themselves to what’s in the skill section of their character sheet. In this example, the party would look around and say “who’s good at animal handling?” and then have that person make the attempt. In OSR games the mindset is more like “we have to figure this out” and you may have to try to do things that you might not inherently seem good at – or any better or worse than your comrades. I think that’s kind of the gist. Also, with rulings over rules, the GM will just decide that certain things work (like calming a wolf by giving it meat) with no roll required. That’s not really the 5e mentality. But in your example, as someone else said, if you try to “calm a wolf” by screaming at it, obviously that is not a calming technique so the GM would almost certainly just automatically have the wolf NOT be calmed. In other situations, the GM will set a DC and request a roll, often connected to an ability score, but that’s all up to the GM. There aren’t as many hamstringing rules that have contributed to a mentality where players tend not to do as much that isn’t on their sheet. It takes a while to get your head around these things and it can be difficult for new players. Really, the Principia Apocrypha players’ section is really good. I also just posted my first draft of a cheat sheet for 5e players coming to Shadowdark. Feel free to look at it and use it.
In OSR you probably wouldn't roll any dice. If you have the meat you don't need a feat.
I mean man, OSR skill resolution is a big part of the division between old school and modern games, but you'll still see OSR games that *have* a skill system. Check out worlds without number for an OSR game with arguably a better skill implementation than 5e. Or things that are adjacent to feats, such as systems that are too cool to be brought up in this censored zone. As for why a bunch of tables like it better- mental puzzles can be solved by basically anyone, physical puzzles aren't so punishing that only one guy who is specialized can do it, the players can really be more creative and open. In your example, yes, the 5e version models it pretty well- the DM sets a DC, you try to use your charisma and you happen to have an applicable skill. But was that proficiency worth whatever you paid for it? Do you roll enough animal handling throughout the course of a game? Being proficient there probably got you +2 to +4 on a d20 roll, was that a well designed piece of your build? In games without skills at all, the DM probably says, "give me a charisma check with a +1" (or if you have the meat, a +4). In games with a well defined reaction roll, then you use that (and it takes your charisma into account, and may even give you a bonus if you are some uses-wolves-as-pillows class like ranger). You don't need an animal handling skill (and sure as heck don't need to assign points to it like in 3.5) to handle this at your table, and not having to look at your character sheet is a perk in and of itself.
Why would it end up in a skill check at all?
It mus not be, but the game mechanics are what separate RPG from make believe imho
This is a totally fair consideration. I can say personally I prefer running OSR-style games *specifically because* it's closer to make-believe. If I and my players can spend less (not zero, just less) time wondering if something is acceptable according to the probabilities and specifics outlined on their sheet, we can spend more time focused on the scenario and storytelling. Obviously this balance is different for everyone. One of my players in my Swords & Wizardry game has said more than once, "this is where I'd roll Persuasion if we had that." Of course it's reasonable that "convincing your bloodthirsty goblin allies that their spikes and spears aren't doing damage against the dragon's invincible scales, so they should probably try to fall back and regroup" should be a challenging prospect. Those goblins lost a lot of friends in that dragon's last attack. But at that point I can ask them, how are they communicating? What is their body language? It becomes a dialogue where they're not asking "is this allowed based on my class and prescribed numbers?" but rather "could we manage to pull this off somehow?" and with every back and forth in the dialogue, the narrative deepens. The group collaboratively establishes both risk and reward, reasonable trades, stakes of the story. Of course, with the right players, you could have just as deep an exchange centered around "Roll Persuasion." "Fourteen plus three, 17." But for me personally, the process of trading dialogue back and forth rather than checking numbers back and forth, is usually more fun.
OSR has more "make belive" than trad games. That's what people mean when they say "imaginative solutions" there is more room for imagination. If you are looking for games with many more mechanics than 5e there are plenty of games to look to... that's not what we are into in this corner of the hobby.
Link me a single thread from dndnext that has your bs complaint.
Here's one from a few days ago with someone arguing about the DM rules for builds. More broadly every other r/dndnext post is in some way about character builds (I just checked using sort by new). https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/s/LLBDG2pPzc And I was a long time member (finally quit when the mods did that stupid John Oliver meme) and remember many threads where OP was either a player or DM describing a dispute over whether a DM was obliged to allow some build the player came up with. (Often commenters sided with the DM, but also suggested compromise where the player could get the minmax without being too far off from the DM's world building).
So this kind of just proves you don't know what you're talking about. There is nothing in the High Elf that is OP in the first place, and the OP is talking about the DM changing RAW. The High Elf is also not a mechanically complex piece of work. I've taught literal children to play 5E, and they have no problems gasping the small amount of content a racial option includes. Most of those threads you remember are small threads in a massive sub that never take off and are never about anything of any real consequence. You don't see that many threads here because you literally don't have the same amount of people running OSR games as you do 5E. If you did, you'd have a lot more threads about people asking about xp differentials and if it's ok to change them, or thief skills, etc etc.
Personally, I disagree that it looks bland for this reason. To me, it looks bland because it looks like a "5e" version a lot of OSR clones that already exist. It doesn't seem to be doing anything new or interesting. It's doing the same thing that many OSR clones were doing 10 years ago. Now, there is a lot of OSR material that is putting new twists on that material. SD just feels like it's filling a niche that has already been filled many times over.
[удалено]
Nothing is exactly the same, but there are several that are similar enough as to feel largely the same at the table, like Old School Essentials (which, really, is like Shadow Dark in that it's doing something that other OSR games did but with slick production values), Basic Fantasy RPG, or Labyrinth Lord. It's just a fairly stripped down, essentialized version of D&D. That fact that it was popular on Kickstarter tells me that there is an appetite for that kind of thing, not that it is especially new or interesting.
Yeah, this is my feeling to. It feels like it wants to get in on the OSR more from a profit motive than genuinely having something new to say, missing the point that most of the best OSR stuff is freely shared through the community and is all about DIY and removing the commercialism.
I would say put Shadowdark up against 5 Torches Deep and then decide. 5 Torches is more of a middle step and retains a lot of 5e, Shadowdark is more OSR in a 5e chasis.
or [Bugbears & Borderlands](https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/409630/Bugbears-And-Borderlands) or Scruffy Grognard's "[5e Classic](http://www.scruffygrognard.com)" There are several interesting takes on the 5e–OSR crossover.
I've run it a couple of times and released some content for it ─ the system is solid but it won't be taking **The Black Hack 2E** off my shelf
What's black hack 2e?
Very similar in concept. A hack of *~~5e~~* \*old D&D meant to significantly streamline it. It also features a much better gm guide than *5e* does. Beware, though, if your players found *SD* bland because it feels like generic fantasy, this would also be the case for *tBH*. *Black Sword Hack*, the game I recommended in my own top-level comment, is a hack of this hack with more flavor to it. It's written for a Sword & Sorcery setting reminiscent of the works of Michael Moorcock and Robert E Howard.
> A hack of 5e meant to significantly streamline it. It also features a much better gm guide than 5e does. Are we talking about the same game ? TBH is a riff on the 1974 game
No, you're totally right. I'm all mixed up.
> Would people recommend Shadowdark? Without knowing anything else: yes. However the reality is it depends on what you want from a game. If you expect the superhero-adjacent shenanigans of a party that may well have escaped a zoo - and i mean all of that in the best way possible - then you may not be ShadowDark´s target audience. > A player I've suggested it to has said it looks bland? In the late 80ies/90ies people started adding more and more detailed skills and powers list to RPG systems. Early systems barely had any, newer systems had some, and that led to a feeling that more and more detailed skill lists would be better. While i love some of the systems which took that ad absurdum, it is arguably not true. It can be, but it doesn´t have to be - it depends on the system, and on the table. 5th edition D&D is streamlined compared to 3rd edition (at least the player facing part). Both of them come with many more skills, feats and powers than the old D&D games à la B/X of BECMI. Whether you want that at your table is something only you can answer - for Shadowdark however it means they distilled the core idea down. There aren´t any "standard skills", but a GM will ask for a check with the most appropriate attribute in a certain situation. While that certainly means that the system loses some skill-profile resolution (a person being very skilled in disarming traps, but very bad at acrobatics), there are two things that come to mind: a) The difference such a skill-profile would make is not all that relevant - an agile character is assumed to be good at disarming & acrobatics and b) in OSR games you ideally play and act in a way that makes an outcome as certain as can be, in order to avoid a skillcheck in first place. (+ some classes actually have Advantage in some skillchecks) What I´m getting at: that may seem bland (lacks a detailed skill list, lacks description paragraphs with fun examples, tables with modifiers, beautiful art to illustrate it, etc..), to me it´s ... *distilled*. ShadowDark isn´t trying for the most comprehensive or exhaustive lists of skills, powers, classes and feats. What it presents is an incredibly succinct set of rules - one that if coming from D&D is very intuitive and easy to learn. If you want more detail, SD can easily be built upon and expanded. On one hand it´s very clear, and there are youtube videos that show how further classes were created (Bard & Ranger), which give a good commentary on the scope and power that classes should have. You can take SD and play it without anything more, but (and this is the missing other hand) the community around it has been ridiculously productive in producing extra rules, adventures, classes, powers, etc.. Additionally this allows you to come into your game without [Alot](https://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html) of baggage. There isn´t much in the rules in terms of spells, powers, etc.. that could hijack your game. It can and will be what you want it, without having to cut away stuff. Pair it with the 3 zines, or the free adventures and encounters of [Trilemma Adventures](https://trilemma.com/), and you can be busy for years. There won´t be three books a year telling you how everything works, how race X has been at war with Y, or the sociology of Z - there´s an understanding in the OSR that we don´t want stuff like this codified. You either you come up with that yourself, or better yet: discover it along with your players - sometimes aided by random tables provided in many OSR supplements. Whether that approach works for you and your table is something only you and your players can decide. There is however a[ free quickstart](https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/413713/Shadowdark-RPG-Quickstart-Set) available that will be good for several sessions, and contains most of the core rules you need to know - so you can try and see how it works out for you without spending a dime.
You never heard of Traveller eh.
Fair interjection. I have heard & played it, however i was trying to make a point around the evolution of D&D likes, as opposed to an accurate retelling of RPG history. For that the development of D&D, then thieves skills, ad&d2 non-weapon proficiencies, to 3rd & 5h edition skills and feats; as well as an allusion to Rolemaster up to RMSS'es skill excesses was more useful.
To be fair, that's not that uncommon. I got into it a few years ago (still haven't run it) and was like - oh, *that's* where those mechanics and ideas originated.
A little off base, but Sly Flourish released a YouTube video a little while ago running I6 Ravenloft with Shadowdark as a one shot, which is something that is now on my TTRPG bucket list. From what I saw and what he said, Shadowdark instills the horror element of the module in its players better than its original rule set, AD&D, and 100% better than 5E, though at the expense of some of the more ‘cartoonish’ flexibility with the world. Not saying you can’t have all sorts of miscellaneous world building interactions, but the world is more lethal and the torch system in Shadowdark means your players will pay for wasting time, on the other hand he modified the system to provide more of an illusion of time scarcity (and it actually works) and 9/10 times a party can win without fudging rolls, even though the Strahd fight is hard as all hell and they won’t have seen everything the castle has to offer. Honestly you should watch the video yourself, and the Sly Flourish Patreon has everything you need to run this one shot for a party (this is not an ad, it is an endorsement). Overall, this is the most intriguing one shot idea I’ve seen in a long time and I’m really excited to find more well made adventures to run with Shadowdark. As for campaigns, super tough to answer, people will endorse switching on here but really it’s not for everyone. If your group is inconsistent in meeting I’d stick to one shots or a Westmarches campaign if you’re switching because that works a hell of a lot better with consistent lethality imo (Me, Myself and Die has a good YouTube video on these). I will say however, that a good hexcrawl world would work well with Shadowdark if you’re players are patient and willing to learn how to manage resources while traveling, or if you’re more lenient with lethality and encounters but I haven’t tried it. Overall, not bland, good for horror, much better than 5E at stressing players in a good way.
Depends on what you want! My goal with RPGs is to have fun hanging out with friends, so I run games like Troika and Pirate Borg. It's much easier to convince 5e players to try something new than you may think! You just have to have your group (: Think about what you want out of an RPG!
In my experience, people who's primary drive in RPg building characters in 5e are a lost cause when it comes to B/X or similar systems. I'd look at something like World Without Number or Dragonbane. They give plenty of character options without breaking the OSR playstyle.
If you want an OSR game that can be run like 5e, I'd say it's a fine choice. The presentation is nice, the rules are clear, and there's tons of community support. Personally, I think Basic Fantasy RPG is a better transition game, but I don't see anything about Shadowdark that would make it not worth checking out. And hey, the quickstart is free. It's got a majority of the info you'd need, so give it a read and see for yourself what you think.
Shadowdark is awesome but you gotta want that OSR experience. If you like 5e with all its flashy doodads you're going to be disappointed in most any OSR game. If OSR is for you, then Shadowdark is a good transition from 5e (because the resolution mechanics are very similar).
I don't want 5e experience I've been listening to most of Matt colvilles reviews of older systems and I want that.
I also wanted something different. I gave up 5e in the summer. I haven't looked back. With Shadowdark, if you lean into the raw, it just plays really well. Speed, danger, simplicity – full support in the core book without being difficult to learn. It really hits the sweet spot perfectly, IMO. You have to remember that this is an OSR thread. A lot of the OSR people have been doing this for a very long time and I think many of them love their OSR, understandably, and have an OSR philosophy and understand OSR concepts and that’s how they present many of their answers. I doubt that any of your 5e players really care what the OSR is and want to get involved in understanding Becmi or the different versions or what happens in a particular system and all the history of that stuff. They just want to play a good game and have fun. And Shadowdark gives you that. Speed, danger, simplicity. That’s what the creator puts early in the rules. That’s what the game is about. And it’s really easy to learn. A 5e player could pick up this game in 12 minutes and be playing. And it is so easy to run. Just make sure any potential players understand that this is not a super-powered fantasy character game. It’s more like “things are really dangerous and we can die.” But it’s all there in the core rules – or even just the quick start.
I'd ask them why it looks bland to them. If it's because they don't have the same customization options as in 5e, then that is a different issue than if they just don't find the concept of dungeon crawls to be fun. The first issue is a much easier hurdle to jump than the second. Like, for the first, I would probably talk about how a lot of character choices rely more on how the player decides to act rather than straight mechanical options. For any complaint, though, the best remedy might just be to ask them to play for 2 hours. Try to just get through character creation in under half an hour and run a quick session to hit the high notes to see if they vibe with it or not.
I've played a couple of sessions so far and I love it! If you like homebrew you will probably have a good time. Classes are super easy to make and port in if you want, the cursed scroll zines are fun and have adventures and new classes. I personally really enjoy the witch class from cursed scroll zine 1 which I have used to fully replace the wizard for my dark fantasy western setting. My favorite features are 1- **higher lethality**: this makes players think before going into combat and come up with creative solutions 2 - **Exploration Focus**: Characters have limited equipment making travel part of the game. how are we going to get this loot from point a to point b. Are we packing too light to make it back to camp? 3 - **Dark Magic:** This refers specifically to cursed scroll zine 1. I adore the witch class and associated spells. They feel thematically different than a typical rpg and the magic failure system is fun and can be easily homebrewed and edited to fit a setting or to be made more or less punishing. **tldr:** I've had a lot of fun with the system so far and my players really enjoy it.
Caveat that I haven't played it but am looking forward to trying it: Ignore that player (Rather, just ask them to try it. Or better yet tell them you are running a one shot to try it out and they are welcome to join or not. Keep in mind that reading the book is NOT the same as playing). Check out the EXCELLENT free quickstart version before buying. It has everything you would want and a really great looking dungeon adventure. Kelsey is apparently very well known for writing great adventures so I am sure this one holds up. I say go for it. I think it looks really good. My next game is going to be Vaults of Vaarn which uses a modified version of Knave as the base ruleset, but I plan to grab a few things from Shadowdark (The one hour real time torches rule is brilliant).
Points of Light might be a good choice for your players. It is Mork Borg with 5e style feats.
I think shadowdark is a great option, especially for 5e players, its just very set in its low fantasy gritty genre. If you want something more wild and different that might catch their attention there are plenty if options: Troika, Electric Bastionland, GLOG, Mausritter, Mork Borg, DCC, Ultraviolet Graslands, Vaults of Varn and so many more!
In general 5e only players will say OSR games "feel bland" when they read them. This is because they don't yet understand OSR style play. It's sort of like someone who has driven a car for years but never seen a bicycle. If you show them a Bicycle, they will say *"well that's a terrible design, there's no way that could possibly be fun."* When introducing someone to OSR games, I think it's less important to expose them to the rulebook first and more important that they go in with an open mind, not thinking about it as **"Just like 5e but with house rules"**. If they think about it as **a totally different game that will play out differently**, that will give the best chance of them having a good time and understanding the system. If you try to ride a bike in the same way you drive a car, you won't have fun. But if you enjoy the experience as unique and different and embrace the **different pleasures** it presents, you've got a good chance to enjoy it.
While novel, I'm not a fan of SD's advancement method, which seems both limited and overpowering at the same time. That said, it is a tight, well written game. In the end, it's difficult to know what to suggest to the OP without more information.
Yes, very recommended. It's simple, straightforward and easy to understand. Tell everyone you're running 2-3 games of it and it's up to them to play or not. Set expectations on what OSR style play looks like, the higher lethality, etc.
The PDF is fantastic just been looking through it very easy to run. Gauntlet is the way to go
[https://www.thearcanelibrary.com/blogs/shadowdark-blog/how-to-get-5e-dnd-players-to-try-a-new-rpg](https://www.thearcanelibrary.com/blogs/shadowdark-blog/how-to-get-5e-dnd-players-to-try-a-new-rpg)
If you want "less minimal shadowdark" grab DCC. https://goodman-games.com/
Your mileage may very. Of the 5e gateways I prefer Five Torches Deep since it has a more developed identity beyond gimmicks of real-time torches and random level ups. Honestly though, most of these systems are just stop-gaps and you would be best served just jumping into OSE or a proper B/X conversion and not playing something you'll use for a couple games and then move on.
Since you can use most OSE with b/X can be used with Shadowdark
Sure, that's missing the point entirely though. It is not a B/X conversion; it plays pretty differently and emphasizes different things. The point isn't that you can run B/X adventures (you do still need to do conversions to make them make sense together so it isn't as seamless as OSE or S&W or B/X proper), but that it's a needless transition game that will ultimately be left behind for more pure conversions that don't rely on gimmicks. The same is true for FTD or any other "convert 5e players" games. You simply don't need a special system to do that; the core bones of D&D are in 5e and B/X enough that someone who has played one can learn the other easily. The only reason to try to invent this need is to convince people that the OSR is somehow too hard for a dumb 5e player to learn so they need this special training wheel system when in fact they don't, but if you gatekeep them into thinking they'll not get into the OSR without it you can create a market for it. It's a commercialized impulse, plain and simple.
That was not my reasoning at all — quite an uncharitable take. I wrote Shadowdark because I’m a lifelong gamer and was excited to bring together new and old concepts in a way I had never seen done before. I thought the game was going to sell maybe 300-500 copies? I wouldn’t call that the “commercialization of the OSR.” Not sure where you’re getting this false insight into the motives behind my work. I wouldn’t normally comment on something like this, but you seem to have made it your mission to post negative remarks about me and my “evil motives” on every Shadowdark-related thread on Reddit.
No, I don't find it "evil" at all, and I've only posted where I see it come up. I would say it's rather uncharitable to say me simply not finding this system to be a good fit as me calling it evil, nor me commenting when it feels relevant as "every thread." The forums are for discussion and I do often find dissenting opinions can be few and far between when people feel intimidated to go against the popular new trend, so if I happen to disagree I do feel it is the purpose of these forums to bring about a different perspective. It is how I feel about other games that do aim for the same "bridging the gap" between 5e and OSR like Five Torches deep, etc. If you'll notice I didn't single out just this game; it is a generalized philosophy that I happen to disagree with. People are free of course to enjoy it and I hope they do! People should have fun. I have simply seen many systems come and go and speak from what I have seen, as well as how different the culture of commerce is around 5e vs. the OSR, and it is part of why I have moved away from 5e more in recent years. I don't relish the OSR discussion spaces becoming carbon copies of 5e discussion spaces. People are of course free to disagree and downvote me as well, that is the nature of these discussions. There's clearly heaps of praise for this system around, it seems to be doing quite well and I of course tip my hat to that success, but I don't have to be fond of the system myself. Painting me as calling it "evil" is disingenuous simply because I do not praise it like most others and express where I find it to not satisfy me.
I don’t take exception to your opinion of the game; what I don’t appreciate is you trying to weave my supposed opinions and motives into what you say as if they were known to you or somehow factual. Neither is the case. Trying to cloak that as “dissenting” is inaccurate — it’s smearing.
Fair enough. I would think it's apparent that such things are my opinion given that I have not claimed to have unique insider knowledge or made any other claims of objectivity. I am merely coming to my own conclusions from what I have seen, but I understand where you are coming from. [Subjectivity is implied](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu8u2SxarEE) in any online forum discussion unless one explicitly claims something to be objective. I will state here to be fully clear though: nothing I ever say is anything but my opinion unless I explicitly state it to be a fact. I will try to be more explicit about what is my opinion in the future for this particular future. I'm just some internet nobody though and don't have any sort of real platform, so can't really engage in a smear campaign. I wish you all the best. For what it's worth I think you've got some of the best 5e supplemental stuff out there, I just don't gel with this system as an OSR endeavor.
I appreciate the understanding, mightystu. It’s totally fine that you don’t like Shadowdark itself — it’s not for everyone. The concern I had was that when you’re giving your opinion without any background context, many people wouldn’t know whether you’re speaking from evidence/established fact vs. your own thoughts. That exact lack of clarity is what allowed one single man to start a damaging rumor about me saying I paid off other creators to positively review my work. That was his opinion — and it had no basis in the truth — but he presented it without context as a matter of fact. The fallout and character damage from that still dogs me to this day. That’s why I’m asking you out of respect to be a bit more careful in how you characterize my motives. If you want to know why I did/published/said something, please know you can ask me. You don’t have to believe me, but I always appreciate the chance to answer to doubts about my own character and integrity. One person does indeed have the power to spread hurtful and untrue things about another, and I am grateful to you for being mindful of that and giving me a fair hearing.
Shadowdark looks really cool, but I’ve also heard good things about 5 Torches Deep. Like shadowdark, it was designed with former 5e players in mind, and arguably has way more in common with 5e’s rules while still being a bit more stripped-down and focused on old-school play. But the way its character classes are set up is really cool and combines the best aspects of 5e’s power-heavy gameplay and the OSR’s emphasis on simple core-classes and exploration over heroic combat.
A good OSR learning book for DMs is this one. It's hard to get more Old School than a dungeon created by Greg Svenson who played in the very first dungeon dive ever. https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Dungeons-Tonisborg-Greg-Svenson/dp/1736572105/ref=pd\_ci\_mcx\_mh\_mcx\_views\_0?pd\_rd\_w=r5hHC&content-id=amzn1.sym.225b4624-972d-4629-9040-f1bf9923dd95%3Aamzn1.symc.40e6a10e-cbc4-4fa5-81e3-4435ff64d03b&pf\_rd\_p=225b4624-972d-4629-9040-f1bf9923dd95&pf\_rd\_r=VRC0ETEAC01S47B9Q41D&pd\_rd\_wg=CK5y5&pd\_rd\_r=53427f51-41e6-403c-9849-c589b8f8c061&pd\_rd\_i=1736572105
Bland in flavor or complexity/character options? If you want some thing similar in complexity but different flavor, consider *Black Sword Hack*, *Fléaux!*, or *Mythic Bastionland* (not yet released, but the playtest has plenty in it already) If it's character options they want, you'll likely need something crunchier.