this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
35 points (100.0% liked)

rpg

4545 readers
5 users here now

This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs

Rules (wip):

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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

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

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

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

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

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

[–] SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

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

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

You are talking about a completely different style of game.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

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

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

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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

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

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

Maybe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–] SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t think a unilateral GM and the mother-may-I it implies

You really sound like you don't trust the GMs you play with. If that's the case, why are you playing with them.

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

Yes.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 4 hours ago

I didn't like the last few GMs decisions and calls, so I don't play with them anymore.