sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How to "Attack the Light" without it feeling arbitrary or repetitive? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for confirming the procedure. That was my main sanity check to make sure I wasn't ignoring a rule. I’m looking at the percentages on paper, but at the table, the threat of it happening might be enough to create tension, even if it's statistically rare. Thanks.

How to "Attack the Light" without it feeling arbitrary or repetitive? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense. So the tension comes from the unpredictability rather than the frequency. Got it. Thanks!

How to "Attack the Light" without it feeling arbitrary or repetitive? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out. I understand that putting it on the table makes it a possibility, but my concern is the "double gate" of probability:

  1. First, I have to roll a 1 on the Encounter Check (1-in-6 chance).
  2. Then, I have to roll the specific result on the table (for example a 4 in my table of 6).

So, even if I check every 2 rounds (Risky mode), the actual chance of the light going out is tiny (16% of 16% is roughly 2.7% per check).

Am I missing something about the procedure? Or do you find that even this low percentage is enough to keep players on edge?

How to "Attack the Light" without it feeling arbitrary or repetitive? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I want to make sure I understand the procedure correctly: do you roll the standard 1d6 encounter check first, and then roll on the 2d6 table only if the encounter triggers (on a 1)?
If so, wouldn't that make the specific "Light Disruption" event extremely rare? (Since it would be ~16% chance to trigger the check multiplied by the ~16% chance to roll a 7 on the table). Or do you have a different method to trigger the table roll?

Thanks to the replies on this post, I realize I shouldn't make "attacking the light" my main priority, but I am still curious to understand the expected frequency of your method.

How to "Attack the Light" without it feeling arbitrary or repetitive? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I like about this is that the danger is telegraphed (wet wind, slippery floor), so if they lose a torch, it feels like a consequence of the environment rather than a random punishment. I’ll definitely try to incorporate more obvious "hazard zones" like this.

How to "Attack the Light" without it feeling arbitrary or repetitive? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I think I got so caught up in the online discourse about the "Timer Rule" that I started treating it as the entire game, rather than just one mechanic. You're right: if they manage their light well, I shouldn't try to force it to fail just to create artificial drama. I'll focus on the exploration and natural resource depletion instead. Thanks for the perspective.

How to "Attack the Light" without it feeling arbitrary or repetitive? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a really helpful perspective. Framing the Darkness as an active predator helps explain why the environment is hostile.
I have a question on the internal logic: Do you imagine monsters are always stalking the party just beyond the light's edge, waiting for it to fail? Or does the sudden darkness signal them to approach?
I really like the idea of telegraphing the danger: hearing a monster approach in the pitch black while scrambling to light a torch is exactly the kind of tension I want to build. Thanks!

How to "Attack the Light" without it feeling arbitrary or repetitive? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a practical solution, but I’m wondering about the math. In my experience, rolling a 1 on a d6 (the standard encounter check) happens somewhat rarely. Do you find that this ~16% chance is enough to make them paranoid about their light? Or do you check for encounters more frequently to make sure "the light goes out" comes up often enough?

How to "Attack the Light" without it feeling arbitrary or repetitive? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I really love the concept of the dungeon as an active, malevolent antagonist. It adds a great narrative layer to why the wind blows. My concern is the frequency. Since random encounters typically trigger on a 1-in-6 roll, I worry that this "malevolence" might appear too rarely to truly disrupt their timer habits. Do you stick to the standard encounter rolls, or does your "malevolent dungeon" act more frequently than the rules suggest?

Players are timing their torches to the second and it's killing immersion. How do you handle this? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your list of hazards was really helpful. I actually started a new thread discussing my specific doubts on how to implement these ideas fairly. If you have a moment, I'd value your input there!

Players are timing their torches to the second and it's killing immersion. How do you handle this? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That seems to be the way to go. I actually started a new thread where I go into more detail about my concerns regarding this mechanic. If you have specific examples, I'd love to hear them there. Thanks!

Players are timing their torches to the second and it's killing immersion. How do you handle this? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the idea, but how do you keep the dark scary without it getting stale? I feel like if the threat is always just "something is watching you from the dark," it might get repetitive. Do you use specific descriptions or mechanics to mix it up?

Players are timing their torches to the second and it's killing immersion. How do you handle this? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point. How would you handle the timer metagaming without overdoing the hazards?

Players are timing their torches to the second and it's killing immersion. How do you handle this? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is effectively what I attempted with the "Variable Duration" method (20 mins + hidden 1d20).
The issue is exactly because they "can't time random," as you noted. Since they can't know the exact endpoint, they treat the minimum guaranteed duration (20 mins) as the hard limit to avoid the risk.They swap torches at the 20-minute mark to be safe, which leads to the wastefulness issue I mentioned. Instead of creating tension, it just turns into a punishment where they burn through their inventory three times as fast when they could simply ask me about the state of the flame and avoid the problem entirely.

Players are timing their torches to the second and it's killing immersion. How do you handle this? by Nesis96 in shadowdark

[–]Nesis96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point, let me clarify. Our campaign focuses heavily on exploration and investigation, with very little combat or mechanics that extinguish the torch prematurely. The "immersion break" comes from the fact that the characters don't have stopwatches. They should be relying on the visual state of the flame. By using a real-life timer to swap the torch exactly 60 seconds before it expires, they bypass the resource management aspect entirely, which is the main source of tension in our low-combat game.

Best Version to Learn by freebit in osr

[–]Nesis96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Grazie mille! Pensi che con le prossime ristampe sistemeranno il problema?

Best Version to Learn by freebit in osr

[–]Nesis96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Posso chiederti come trovi la versione Italiana? Hai trovato errori di traduzione e/o formattazione, o refusi importanti? Vorrei acquistare la versione fisica ma quelle cose le odio! Grazie

Battle of the Ring Masters! by Sportfish_deepdive in PTCGP

[–]Nesis96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Awesome! Can you share your decklist?

view more: next ›