So, this saves me the trouble of starting my own thread, so thanks for that.  I've finished one campaign as player (starting with a funnel), one campaign as the DM, and I'm in the middle of a second campaign as a player.  Averaged about 25-35 sessions in each of the first two campaigns, and am 10+ into the third.  So, what do I think?

First, it's a little difficult to separate "Shadowdark" from some of the borrowed conceits and the associated problems they have.  For example, my group hated the funnel with a passion.  Used one of the official adventures published for the game, and spent most of the time running from encounters.  It wasn't heroic in the slightest, but I'm not sure Shadowdark deserves the blame for this.  So I'm going to try and stick to just mechanics and conceits that I can pin completely on Shadowdark.  And, all in all, the game is... mid.

As far as the general presentation, the rules are what I would expect for a semi-OSR game, mostly general and of low complexity.  Woe to the kid who has never played an RPG who tries to run this, though.  So much of the rules depend on players having a general knowledge of how a D&D-like game should run in order to fill in the blanks.  Now, as someone who prefers rulings over rules, I liked that the rules mostly got out of my way... mostly...

The classes are fine, as far as they go.  The random leveling abilities doesn't bother me, but they are very limited.  I originally thought of this as having an OSR flair in that characters were defined more by the magic they find, rather than the class abilities.  I can remember in AD&D having characters that were defined by the magic items they found ("Remember that guy you had with the Vorpal sword?  He was cool!  And that magic-user with the Staff of the Magi?").  I expected this to be true with Shadowdark, considering how little else they get from class features.  But the magic items underwhelm.  Not only do they not really define the characters positively, the curses are usually way worse than whatever benefit you get.  Frankly, they suck overall.  I, and the other DMs, quickly started making our own items with either minor or no curses, just so the players didn't feel like they were punched in the dick every time they got an item.  I recognize that some people might like the "every positive has its negative" flavor, but the game is already pretty lethal, so do you really need to crap on any other positives for characters?

Additionally, the caster classes are so swingy that they are frustrating.  I played a wizard in the first campaign, and it generally was annoying more than anything else.  I remember getting acid arrow when I hit third.  I went four straight sessions without getting to cast the spell, because the moment I tried the first time after a rest, I failed the casting check.  So I spent my one spell gained for that level on something that never worked until I was almost ready to go up again.  We ended up house-ruling spells to always succeed on first cast, as long as they were of a level you could gain normally (since no one could find any limits on what spells you could learn or cast from scrolls... so we assumed that if you found a fifth tier scroll and rolled to learn it, which statistically means you can only learn one out of every 3 spells for most of your career, you can cast it just like any other spell).  And on top of this, there are the critical spell failures, which is once again a dick-punch on the regular.  So, you could have a session where you cast every spell every time (and roflstomp everything), followed by a session where you lose every spell in an hour.  OK, so now what?

For our third campaign, we finally resorted to pulling the Feats from Old Swords Reign and allowing the choice of one every two levels (modified to fit Shadowdark).  It was the only way we could figure out how to add a little variability to the characters.  Their abilities, items, and spells really don't.

So, I can see us playing this for a while longer.  But honestly, I can also see us losing interest after a while, too.  It's an OK game.  It does what it does, and competently.  But it seems ... bland.  If you bring personality, creativity, and character to the game, it will play well.  But it really doesn't have any of that on its own.  And a good DM can add that to any game, really...

Wow why are you guys giving it such a fair shake for a "mid" game?  That's a lot of sessions no matter how you slice it.

I mean it's obviously doing something correctly if you are on your third campaign of it.

I used to have a vague dislike for SD. (after reading the quickstart, not playing)

I remember it was a big success then I heard she had paid one or more OSR influencers for reviews (supposedly? correct me if I'm wrong).

I thought this basically meant our hobby was finished.

Also, I couldn't really see what makes it special. It is not quite compatible with B/X nor 5e.

It is also not that innovative either. Most of the concepts seem taken from other parts of the OSR (for example, DCC RPG) without much credit given.

The classes "talents" are very few.

I tried buying a copy but a PDF costs US$ 30 and not available on DTRPG where I have some credit. There are several free games that seem to work better (things like Old Swords Reign, Bugbears and Borderlands, etc.)

But then again I admit it DOES have some minimalist charm, and I like minimalist games. The old school look is also cool.

Now it is a huge success again and there is not much to do except accept it, I guess.

I still prefer it over 2024 D&D etc., I might even write some material for that (as I did for OSE before), if that is what OSR folks are playing.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 23, 2025, 09:14:09 PMSo, this saves me the trouble of starting my own thread, so thanks for that.  I've finished one campaign as player (starting with a funnel), one campaign as the DM, and I'm in the middle of a second campaign as a player.  Averaged about 25-35 sessions in each of the first two campaigns, and am 10+ into the third.  So, what do I think?

First, it's a little difficult to separate "Shadowdark" from some of the borrowed conceits and the associated problems they have.  For example, my group hated the funnel with a passion.  Used one of the official adventures published for the game, and spent most of the time running from encounters.  It wasn't heroic in the slightest, but I'm not sure Shadowdark deserves the blame for this.  So I'm going to try and stick to just mechanics and conceits that I can pin completely on Shadowdark.  And, all in all, the game is... mid.

As far as the general presentation, the rules are what I would expect for a semi-OSR game, mostly general and of low complexity.  Woe to the kid who has never played an RPG who tries to run this, though.  So much of the rules depend on players having a general knowledge of how a D&D-like game should run in order to fill in the blanks.  Now, as someone who prefers rulings over rules, I liked that the rules mostly got out of my way... mostly...

The classes are fine, as far as they go.  The random leveling abilities doesn't bother me, but they are very limited.  I originally thought of this as having an OSR flair in that characters were defined more by the magic they find, rather than the class abilities.  I can remember in AD&D having characters that were defined by the magic items they found ("Remember that guy you had with the Vorpal sword?  He was cool!  And that magic-user with the Staff of the Magi?").  I expected this to be true with Shadowdark, considering how little else they get from class features.  But the magic items underwhelm.  Not only do they not really define the characters positively, the curses are usually way worse than whatever benefit you get.  Frankly, they suck overall.  I, and the other DMs, quickly started making our own items with either minor or no curses, just so the players didn't feel like they were punched in the dick every time they got an item.  I recognize that some people might like the "every positive has its negative" flavor, but the game is already pretty lethal, so do you really need to crap on any other positives for characters?

Additionally, the caster classes are so swingy that they are frustrating.  I played a wizard in the first campaign, and it generally was annoying more than anything else.  I remember getting acid arrow when I hit third.  I went four straight sessions without getting to cast the spell, because the moment I tried the first time after a rest, I failed the casting check.  So I spent my one spell gained for that level on something that never worked until I was almost ready to go up again.  We ended up house-ruling spells to always succeed on first cast, as long as they were of a level you could gain normally (since no one could find any limits on what spells you could learn or cast from scrolls... so we assumed that if you found a fifth tier scroll and rolled to learn it, which statistically means you can only learn one out of every 3 spells for most of your career, you can cast it just like any other spell).  And on top of this, there are the critical spell failures, which is once again a dick-punch on the regular.  So, you could have a session where you cast every spell every time (and roflstomp everything), followed by a session where you lose every spell in an hour.  OK, so now what?

For our third campaign, we finally resorted to pulling the Feats from Old Swords Reign and allowing the choice of one every two levels (modified to fit Shadowdark).  It was the only way we could figure out how to add a little variability to the characters.  Their abilities, items, and spells really don't.

So, I can see us playing this for a while longer.  But honestly, I can also see us losing interest after a while, too.  It's an OK game.  It does what it does, and competently.  But it seems ... bland.  If you bring personality, creativity, and character to the game, it will play well.  But it really doesn't have any of that on its own.  And a good DM can add that to any game, really...

Sounds like your group should switch to Old Swords Reign since you were already using parts of it.

how is this any different than the 100 page Shadowdark thread that already exists and has all the info that everyone here is looking for.

Quote from: THE_Leopold on March 24, 2025, 04:17:53 PMhow is this any different than the 100 page Shadowdark thread that already exists and has all the info that everyone here is looking for.

I didn't post my experiences in the other one.

Quote from: THE_Leopold on March 24, 2025, 04:17:53 PMhow is this any different than the 100 page Shadowdark thread that already exists and has all the info that everyone here is looking for.

This one has more people actually talking about the content of the game itself instead of virtue signaling about how open they are to it

Quote from: KingCheops on March 23, 2025, 10:57:06 PMWow why are you guys giving it such a fair shake for a "mid" game?  That's a lot of sessions no matter how you slice it.

I mean it's obviously doing something correctly if you are on your third campaign of it.

Ehhh, we're between games, honestly.  We did about two years on Shadow of the Demon Lord and wore that smooth.  Not going back to WotC D&D.  Not really looking for a straight-up retro-clone.  So we kick the tires of a number of games, to see how they play at low and high level.  One campaign isn't really enough time to put a game through its paces, as long as it's not complete trash.  And Shadowdark isn't trash.  It's mid.

As to the "obviously doing something correctly" bit, I've eaten at McDonalds more than a steakhouse, too.  Doesn't mean McD's is better...

Quote from: THE_Leopold on March 24, 2025, 04:17:53 PMhow is this any different than the 100 page Shadowdark thread that already exists and has all the info that everyone here is looking for.

Easy. That other thread isn't on the first page of the forum.

As good as Shadowdark is, it's not in my top 5 games.

If somebody asks, I would run these fantasy games first.

1.  Kogarashi/True-D6.  They're nearly the same game, just set in fantasy Japan vs fantasy Europe.

2.  Palladium Fantasy 1st edition.  It's an old favorite of mine. I do really like that game.

3.  Chanbara.  It's also set in Japan, but is OSR/D&D rules with a couple twists like combat moves that rely on typical dump stats like Intelligence.

4.  Mini-six Bare Bones Edition.  It's free.  It's classic D6 Star Wars rules.  It is technically a non-specific genre game, but it can do fantasy.  I would modify it so magic is more flexible, though.

5.  Pocket Fantasy.  It's free.  It's super rules light, but I consider it a fully fleshed out RPG.  I do prefer to use the free add-on that adds more classes.  It increases from 4 to 14 classes to pick from. Did I mention it's free?

I'll play Shadowdark if that's what everyone wants, but it's not interesting enough by itself.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 24, 2025, 04:44:28 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on March 23, 2025, 10:57:06 PMWow why are you guys giving it such a fair shake for a "mid" game?  That's a lot of sessions no matter how you slice it.

I mean it's obviously doing something correctly if you are on your third campaign of it.

Ehhh, we're between games, honestly.  We did about two years on Shadow of the Demon Lord and wore that smooth.  Not going back to WotC D&D.  Not really looking for a straight-up retro-clone.  So we kick the tires of a number of games, to see how they play at low and high level.  One campaign isn't really enough time to put a game through its paces, as long as it's not complete trash.  And Shadowdark isn't trash.  It's mid.

As to the "obviously doing something correctly" bit, I've eaten at McDonalds more than a steakhouse, too.  Doesn't mean McD's is better...

Thanks for the clarification.