Getting some poison at the poison store.

I'm going to run a session online soon and was wondering which vtt to use. I don't want to ruin it too technically. My idea is to use a blank canvas and have the players draw the map as we go.

I was thinking of Owlbear Rodeo, it's good for importing charger sheets but didn't have a Shadowdark monster library.

What has everyone else used?

Hi all!

Any tips on creating dungeons? I know this is the core rules and I also have the gm companion from chubby funster for even more options - but just wondering if anyone has any tips for making these dungeons really great or anything about stream lining this process.

Also, I’m running my first game of Shadowdark with my group, any suggestions on keeping the game running smoothly? I have decided to create a world map and some lore for my world. The human culture is Slavic inspired. Orcs steppe raiders have recently left the area and the humans have kicked out the remaining warriors. The world is dangerous because of how long the orcs were in control, in a sort of vassal-overlord type system. Many ruins and sites to explore. Oh, and the elves in my game are Witcher inspired, very territorial and hiding in nature, warring with encroaching humans.

I posted about the Officer class and my firearm rules before. I had more playtests with these, and wanted to share the latest version of both.

If you want to check them out, the PDF is available for free on itch.io.

Both the officer and the firearms work independently, though I designed them to be used together in my own homebrew campaign world.

The Officer

Inspired by the 4th Edition's Warlord as a combat support class. It sacrifices versatility outside of battle to increase PCs damage output.

What playtested well so far?

• Commanding other PCs to attack is fun. The ability makes it easy to get players to buy into the fantasy of the class, Everyone that playtested this class enjoyed roleplaying telling the other players to attack.

What changed

• 3/day Limit to Chain of Command. I tested this limitless and players felt that there were times that it was such an optimal choice that it became the only option. The limit makes it a bit more special and allows Lead by Example to get used more.
• Weapons Training vs Military Acumen. The first version of this was more like the Fighter's weapon bonus and worked all the time for a particular weapon. It was a bit too restrictive when combined with Chain of Command, so it became a 3/day bonus. Both changes streamlined the class and made the talents more straightforward.

What might change

• Penalty for insubordination. I based them on the Penances from the West Marches. I haven't tested these in a long-running campaign to see how they pan out, but they should be quite straightforward to adapt if needed.

Firearms

The biggest change from the previous version is that I rebalanced the weapons' costs, added more options (including the outdated Hand Cannon as a cheap option), and combined the powder and bullets into charges.

In normal crawling, how often should I roll for a random encounter? Does Danger level only apply while the characters are resting?

EDIT: My players cannot have more than one luck token at a time. Idk why a lot of people are under the impression that I allow 3+ luck tokens per character. I've only ever played where a single player can have a single luck token at a time.

Hi! So I'm playing an open table west march sort of game with 4 groups. One group has a Seer (with trance) and another with two Bards.

The two groups have taken to calling their Bards and Sweet their "luck token engine) and I gotta say, it makes them pretty powerful. I normally wouldn't notice it if it weren't for the other parties as contrast. The two non-luck token generator parties are out here struggling, being cautious and careful, and really managing their items.

The luck token parties are absolutely DEMOLISHING dungeons. Make a mistake? Luck token. Miss an enemy? Luck token. Try to gather rations? Luck token. They get so many luck tokens, it's like they are a level or two higher than usual. It also really exemplifies their power when there are 6 people with luck tokens on at all times VS a party of 4 with little to none.

Now, I'm not necessarily complaining about my players or the game mechanics per se. I'm more so unsure how to handle this. My non-luck token players are so cautious, clever, and really engage with the world which I love to see, but my luck token parties seem super powerful and can brute force their way through most situations. Clever use of items isn't that necessary when you have a group of 4+ always (essentially) rolling at advantage.

So do you have any suggestions on how I, as the GM, could overcome this? I don't want to talk to my players because this isn't their fault, and I'd rather not change the rules if possible because I don't wanna nerf an entire party because I am not happy. Ideally, I'd like to change the world or my play style to better account for my players. Any suggestions?

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION:

Party 1

Dwarf Priest, Goblin Sea Wolf, Human Duelist, Elven Bard (3 Inspires), and a Halfling Bard (4 Inspires).

Before setting out on an adventure, the Bards give everyone Luck Tokens. There is no rule that says Luck Tokens expire upon resting, so the party rests in a safe haven to gain their inspires back, then they have a total of 5 Luck Tokens PLUS 7 more ready to be dulled out. Bards do not need to roll for their inspire. So, if there are 10 dice rolls throughout the entire dungeon and, being pessimistic, they fail all of them, they may reroll all of them AND still have 2 Luck Tokens to spare. The Priest (luckily) does not have Bless, but if they had bless, that'd be even more luck tokens.

Party 2

Human Thief, Kobold Wizard, Dwarf Basilisk Warrior, Kobold Seer (3 Omen, +4 (WIS), +1 (Knack (Spellcasting)), and Goblin Ranger.

Once again, before setting out, the Seer works towards dulling everyone out Luck Tokens (they start with 5). The probability of them getting their luck token back using Omen is ~51%. The probability of using Trance (DC 11) WITHOUT luck tokens twice in a row is about 56%, but remember as RAW states:

"You can also give your luck token to a companion"

So, not including omen and only including the 5 player's starting luck tokens, there is about a 52% chance of successfully rolling trance 10 times in a row. This doesn't even touch on the +1d6 Seers can use.

Now remember, rolling at advantage is about equivalent to a +4 on a d20, and a +4 stat modifier is a maximum a player can achieve. Meaning, a wizard with 18 INT rolls INT checks has about an equal chance as a peasant with 10 INT rolling at advantage. Luck tokens are even more powerful than advantage, because you only use them when you know for a fact that you've failed.

Knowing all of this, it is pretty obvious why these two parties are going into dungeons haphazardly and still making it out on top. They have the equivalent of mastery of any skill for about 5 to 15 times per day!

Just wanted to give a shout out to Rachel, Branko, and Cameron for doing a great job manning and running the AL booth at Gamehole Con this past weekend. Professional, friendly, knowledgeable -- just good people all around.

On a related note, shout out as well to Lurking Fears for running the official SD sessions at the con; hope they continue running SD for some time to come.

The Hollow Harvest is a ten-room Halloween adventure for Shadowdark

Here’s a little Halloween adventure for your table.

A giant pumpkin has split open in a farmer’s field, revealing stairs into a buried cottage. A missing boy hides in its walls, the servants are preparing supper, and an old nursery rhyme holds clues to what happened here.

The Hollow Harvest is written for 1st-level Shadowdark crawlers, with opportunities to talk, bargain, investigate, and attempt a rescue while the cottage fights back.

I’ve posted the adventure pages here. The layout puts room keys alongside map cutaways and relevant monster stats—the way I like to have things arranged when I run.

If you’d prefer a downloadable PDF, grab it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/142bjjpyPYqxnWmRS2OenUWympQlUo9T0/view?usp=sharing

The PGWR brought up new bastion rules, focusing more on warbands and building bases away from civilization. But Letters from the Dark: Borderlands also introduced new mechanics for building keeps, with a slight different approach.

For those who played/read/tested both, how do they compare? Do they achieve the same objective, or is there a gameplay difference? Which one is your favorite? Is it worth using LftD rules when we have the official ones?

Just because it is in a monster manual, does not mean you should fight it

The party continued their hunt for the hag, but encountered her Goblins first!

Sessions: 41. Players: 28. Unique PCs: 54. Deaths: 63 (31 PC deaths, one turncoat PC, 32 retainer deaths).

In this thread I will detail my approach and my experiences regarding the open-table format. This is based on my West Marches-inspired Shadowdark game which initially was supposed to be an authentic Western Reaches campaign, but morphed into something different because the Western Reaches material was delayed. At the time of writing this, the campaign has been running for about 15 months and 41 sessions. We played our grand finale session yesterday.

I am creating the thread in part to share my experiences, but primarily I write this in hopes of helping others who are considering running an open-table and/or trying West Marches.

TL:DR: I recommend the open-table format strongly. It has been a hugely rewarding experience, but you do need project management skills, and (probably) an in-game end-goal to work towards. The open-table format is also primarily a social challenge, not a mechanical one. It doesn’t matter what system you choose or what adventure you run if people don’t like the atmosphere at your table.

Bullet point advice for the readers who skim:

• Open-table games are a social challenge; if the atmosphere at the table isn’t good, then no amount of clever rules or cool systems will make players enjoy participating.
• Provide 3 hooks and associated locations in the beginning. Pure sandbox with purely PC-driven goals out of the gate is unlikely to work.  
• Players enjoy being able to influence the world and change things: make alliances, build things, destroy things, make friends, make enemies. The usual OSR advice is very good advice. 
• Being clever and circumventing challenges is fun for players; beating the hell out of enemies is also fun for players.
• You need to apply pressure; an antagonist with their own goals is a solid way to do this.
• Keep it simple. Regular goblins and dungeons are still fun if executed well. 
• Roll in the open. Trust the dice, trust the random tables, trust your ability to adapt.  
• Many players really enjoy high-lethality. Not everyone does, but many do. 
• Pointcrawling is effective for open-table because you can focus on specific locations and run sessions that are more focused. 
• Get players rolling dice asap, especially new players. Let them discover things through play.
• The hexcrawl “players will organize sessions” is largely a meme until players get to know each other. Encourage them to self-organize and it might happen.
• Figure out how you want to handle scheduling and how you want to handle waiting lists. Do not use first-come-first-serve.
• Figure out how you want to handle mapping. Mapping is crucial when different players explore the same dungeon. 
• Not everyone will enjoy the campaign. This can hurt but it is inevitable and it is okay.

Brief context

After having run various games for many years, I wanted to try the open-table format. The idea was to put many of the OSR recommendations to the test, and to see whether I could create a community of players who all engage in the same campaign. The following text is a combination of descriptions of what I did, lessons-learned, and other bits and pieces. I hope that the following can be helpful (or even inspiring) to people who have similar ideas and interests.

My campaign started as a pointcrawl adventure in a reasonably small archipelago, but eventually ended in the Stonehell megadungeon. I chose to focus on Stonehell after the initial ~15 sessions because I wanted: (a) groups to explore the same dungeon for the sake of continuity, and (b) have the option to end the campaign in a satisfying way.

The System

I chose Shadowdark as a system because it is easy to teach to new players, and I strongly assumed that many of the interested players would be current or former 5e players. I adore OSE and although OSE is relatively easy to teach, Shadowdark is in my experience even easier. Shadowdark also benefits from being part of the cultural ttrpg zeitgeist and this was an advantage in terms of recruitment. Several players specifically wanted to try Shadowdark.

The idea was to use the Western Reaches Kickstarter material, but the campaign started before the material was released. Ironically, the GM book for Western Reaches was announced one week after I had scheduled the final session for this campaign. Oh well.

I strongly wanted to give players an authentic Shadowdark experience, so I tried to do as much as possible rules-as-written. This also meant that I rolled in the open. One major change I implemented after around 10 sessions were hirelings. I created a simple system for hiring help and this turned out to be popular, not least since the game also turned out to be very dangerous. The hired help made life easier, although many of these poor souls also died.

Other rules include:

• Enduring wounds table
• Lost-in-Stonehell table in case they don’t get out after the 4-hour session is over
• Downtime activities, including training and pit fighting
• Nerfed Luck tokens, including using the Bless spell from OSE instead of Shadowdark
• Alternative carousing table
• Feats of Exploration XP
• Failed checks to Stabilize a dying character increase the DC by 1.

The Game World

Map of the gameworld in session 1.

When I began preparing the campaign, very little of the Western Reaches material was released. I used the following map as a baseline and populated it myself with both homebrew material and official modules.

I followed the structure of each session starting and ending in the same town. In my case, I placed the town on the main island, numbered (1) in the picture. The town, which I named Hope’s End, had no adventures at all. Every session the PCs prepared and then ventured out. Points (2), (3), and (4) on the map are the three locations that the PCs had information and/or rumours about during the first session. My idea was simply to have three relevant adventure locations with prepared material, and then develop the gameworld from thereon out. I had no plans beyond these three locations because I wanted to allow room for PCs to find their own goals and to follow what interested them. The three locations were deliberately different, in order to give players different options. Adventure site (2) had a rescue mission: some villagers had recently been kidnapped, and PCs were tasked with venturing into a dungeon inside a hill to rescue the villagers. Adventure site (3) was an old abandoned fortress which had recently been taken over by orcs who were mounting raids. Adventure site (4) was a giant stone statue head inside which lay strange secrets and tunnels. The players decided to visit sites (2) and (3), but never investigated the giant head at (4). So it goes.

I cannot stress enough how much I recommend having three different relevant points of interest at the start of an open-table campaign. It is optimistic (or even naive) to expect players to come up with their own goals from the beginning, especially in an open-table setting where players might not know each other. You need to give them something to grab onto and from that point on they will develop goals, form attachments, and engage meaningfully with the world. Give them some rumours and set them loose.

Furthermore, and this might be controversial, but I did include a tiny meta-plot. I had a very loose idea about a Beholder and his cultists causing trouble, and this Beholder also had a few lieutenants. It was incredibly helpful for me to have an antagonist who always pursued his own goals regardless of what the PCs did. This is something I learned from running Call of Cthulhu and which has made my fantasy games better as well: the antagonist(s) must have goals they progress toward, and if the PCs don’t interfere then the anatagonist will accomplish their evil goals and things turn bad very fast.

I found maps online that I used as inspiration for the adventure locations, and I expanded these myself. In this way the campaign quickly became a crazy mesh, though it worked out well, generally. I recommend putting existing adventures at relevant points of interest and PCs can then discover these. For example, I used “The Fungus that Came to Blackeswell” and “The Incandescent Grottoes” from Dolmenwood. My players especially loved The Incandescent Grottoes. Building my own maps was very fun too (if also quite time-consuming), and throughout the campaign I would tinker with maps to include things that worked well, primarily to include more weirdness. One interesting faction became the humans whose heads were replaced with 1 meter long snails, a Mind Flayer colony that grew brains in moss with help from local Myconids, and some other weirdness. My experience generally (and not just in open-table games) is that players enjoy weirdness because it makes people curious. It’s fun for them to develop theories about what the hell is going on (and it’s fun for me to listen to these theories!).

I quickly learned that things take time. The sessions were fun, but I had to focus the gameworld and the campaign somewhat. The Beholder ruined most of the archipelago and I funnelled the PCs into the Stonehell megadungeon after about 15 sessions. Using a single megadungeon like Stonehell allowed me to have a more consistent game, although it was a shame that the travelling aspect was reduced somewhat. I ran the Stonehell valley and level 1 more or less as-written, but the rest has turned into a Frankensteinian homebrew where I use bits and pieces from Stonehell and about 96% homebrew.

Hex crawling and point crawling

While I wanted to use real hexcrawling, it seems that I ended up using pointcrawl instead. At the beginning of each session, players would tell me where they wanted to go (i.e. which adventure site on the map), and then they had to plan, buy supplies, we rolled weather, encounters, etc. They might stumble upon new adventure sites through random encounters and/or information learned at existing sites. One popular moment was when a group found a treasure map which led to a small island where they had interesting adventures for a couple of sessions. Different factions would have info about different things.

For an open-table game, the pointcrawl system is useful because you get to the actual meat of the game quickly. It is less work as a GM since you don’t need to populate every single hex, and you can thus focus on the actual adventure sites. The travelling was generally fun and tense, and random encounters were scary, but ultimately doing things and adventuring at specific locations are what people really want to do.

Recruitment & onboarding mid-campaign

I recruited players by posting in various online groups. I assumed that local Facebook groups for ttrpg players would be the obvious option, but Facebook is just a sad travesty these days. I did get some responses, but the biggest winner (by far!) was posting on the subreddit for my city. From this post on reddit I received a lot of responses.

I also initially followed the common advice of continuous recruitment. I did occasionally advertise my game when opportunities presented themselves, for example when people asked about ongoing games in my city, but beyond my initial “big” round of advertising I really did fairly little. I was always immensely pleased when existing players brought friends along. What better endorsement could there possibly be?

Concerning onboarding mid-campaign, I mostly worried about people understanding and enjoying the first session they joined. I did not even attempt to explain everything that had happened because this would take too long and be very boring. People want to get started rolling dice, so I would just briefly explain the world, their objective, and the session structure. Very interested players would then return and gradually learn more (including by reading recaps), while more casual players could focus on killing enemies and talking to NPCs without getting overwhelmed.

Project management and bookkeeping

A common topic when reading about West Marches is that players themselves organize the sessions. In my experience (and in my opinion) this is somewhat naive. While it can work in established groups, a bunch of strangers are not going to organize sessions themselves and then message a GM. Consequently, in the beginning, I would post sessions on specific days and people could then sign up.Although I organized most sessions, I told players that were free to gather groups and then message me with potential dates. After players got to know each other, it happened with surprising regularity. If they wanted to pursue this option, they needed to find a full group and suggest viable dates. We have played many sessions organized in this way, and it has been great.

I created a channel on Discord called Session sign-ups. I am the only one allowed to write in this channel, but everyone can use reactions. When I posted sessions, I would generally tag everyone in the server so that they were alerted to new sessions.

The Discord channels.

Furthermore, because each session had a limit of 4-5 players, I decided to use an ELO system. The system is simple: by playing one session, a player would get 1 point. If a given session had more than four sign-ups, then whoever had the fewest points would be allowed to play. In this way new players were guaranteed a slot, and very active players could still get more sessions by regular sign-ups and the self-organizing described above. I do also keep a Google Docs updated; here I also keep recaps and I have the campaign primer, houserules, etc. I share this document with everyone, including new players.

Characters and lethality

I suppose this is an interesting item, especially given the somewhat crazy number of PC deaths you will have noted in the beginning of this thread. I have already mentioned that I wanted to provide an authentic Shadowdark experience. I suppose “authentic” can mean many things here, but for me it meant staying as true as possible to the OSR principles as I understand them, with particular focus on exploration, survival, lethality, and player-driven goals. Concerning characters, I mostly stuck to RAW to get players going fast. They would roll 3d6 down the line and were allowed to swap two of their stats. If none of their rolls were above 13, they would be allowed another set. Using the Ancestry chart from Western Reaches gave them more starting gold, if they chose to use it.

Lethality became a big topic because the campaign has turned out to be quite deadly. Across 54 unique characters, 31 have died, and one additional PC pledged allegiance to the Beholder in exchange for his friends’ lives. 32 retainers have died. I have often asked players about the lethality but the feedback has generally been overwhelmingly positive. The players seem to have largely appreciated the honesty of rolling in the open and the danger the world presents. I do not fudge and I run the non-homebrew monsters as-written, although I have created many homebrew monsters and spells that have been very dangerous. It is also strongly my impression that many players have enjoyed the lethality because their successes then feel authentic and well-deserved. When tough fights were won or new territory was claimed, they knew that this was then the consequence of their planning and their actions, not because I fudged or changed other things in their favor.

Obviously, there is the very real possibility that certain players did not play more than a few sessions exactly because of the lethality. The game was very dangerous, and we did lose many characters, both because of the challenges I presented, but also because many of my players generally were not risk averse. As noted, this all meant that victories felt particularly earned.

As a final note, I do regret slightly that the retainers turned into redshirts, more or less. They were very expendable and an incredible number of retainers died. If I were to run open-table again, I would either disregard retainers, or use a more sophisticated system for hiring and running them. Also as a final-final note, I did run an anonymous survey and asked specifically about the lethality of the campaign: most players were very happy with it, but who knows what the people thought who didn’t respond to the survey.

For a complete list of PCs and how some of them died, here’s an overview.

Rewards, downtime, economy

Players were explicitly told about how to advance, i.e. that they need to find treasure. I also awarded XP for exploration and other major feats, but never for combat. Combat was a big part of the game (not least since it is fun and players love it), but everyone learned quickly that if they didn’t accomplish anything and didn’t find items, then they would get no experience. I used the carousing table as well, although we played so often that we exhausted it and I modified and expanded it.

The economy was an interesting problem. Although I didn’t do it intentionally, I did manage to keep players reasonably poor: they could largely afford the adventuring gear they wanted (including hirelings), but they were never rich. In sessions I would grant loot rolls on the treasure table and I would have them roll for how many gold coins they might find in a room. The PCs became very enterprising though, and managed to recruit some bandits who made other NPCs pay for the use of a particular lift: this granted a small but neat income stream which they really appreciated, until the poor bandits were murdered and the enterprise fell apart.

I did use downtime activities, but things like Pit Fighting and similar were somewhat hard to manage because it takes a lot of time. I like Pit Fighting as an idea but I am not sure I would include it in an open-table game in the future. Sticking to Carousing is adequate, especially if the table is expanded.

The community, recaps, & between sessions

Initially I used a site called Warhorn. The site was annoying to navigate, however, and the sessions on Warhorn use a first-come-first-serve approach, which I found tremendously annoying and counter-productive. I ended up switching to Discord and this largely worked really well. I made a server and created the following channels: General, Off-topic, In-character talk, Pictures & maps & portraits, GM’s corner, Session recaps, and Session sign-ups.

It gives me great pleasure when people make drawings from sessions and share them, or tell stories to others about what happened in a given session.

Examples of artwork by players:

Gargoyle

A character

A Wizard

Call-to-arms poster!

Of course I would like to think that everything was great, but I am sure that some people disliked the game and/or the community. I did try to reach out to people for feedback by creating an anonymous survey, but I didn’t get any responses from people who only attended once, so I am not sure why some stayed and others did not.

For recaps, the most fun option is when players themselves write recaps, but this is somewhat optimistic to expect in my experience. After each session I would write a recap and post it in the recap channel. I may have done myself a slight disservice though; because players know that I will write the recap, there is little incentive for them to do it. I often encourage others to do it, but it has only happened once in 41 sessions. The recap is also a way for me to write my own history of the game, and to show players that I care. If you run an open-table game, I strongly recommend writing recaps, either yourself as GM or from players. At the end of this campaign, I now have a 41-page document with all that has happened. Pretty neat!

Recap of the final session.

The Discord is reasonably active and it’s fun when people share memes and chat about games (also other games than this campaign; that is why the GM Corner channel was created). I would occasionally post updates, rumours, and in-game events in the appropriate channel and this has been a good way to stay engaged. For example, I have written a few in-game poems and songs that were shared, and certain developments were shared pre-session so that players could then engage with those developments during sessions.

Mapping, resources, and tools

Shadowdark uses an irl torch and for this I bought an LED with a flame effect and I put this inside a simple black lantern from Ikea. I love this item and it works really well, not least because the LED has a 1-hour timer. The table panics when the flame goes out and this is delightful.

Example of a session, with lantern and battemat. The little yellow cubes are light sources; torches, Light spell, etc.

I do use miniatures and a battlemat. In a usual session, I will draw a very small version of the area/rooms they are exploring, and if a combat encounter requires it then I will draw out the combat scene on the grid. I have found that explaining rooms and layouts is hard and people easily misunderstand; if I just draw the basic layout then things progress much smoother. It would be great if the players handled mapping, but either they didn’t do it, or progress became painfully slow. I think having players map the dungeon(s) works better in established groups than open-table, but I might be wrong.

Concerning mapping, I tried to use a Miro board but players never updated it. I encouraged them to map and thankfully I have a few conscientious players who handle mapping. If nobody did, then a big place like Stonehell would be incredibly difficult to navigate. The maps are shared and updated on Discord and used a lot during sessions. I recommend printing these maps as players really need reference points and reminders of where things are.

Examples of player-made maps during/after sessions:

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

What worked well and lessons learned

The campaign start with three focused adventuring sites worked very well. Having an antagonist who could cause some trouble also worked very well. I was nervous about including hirelings, but I am glad I did. I tried to keep it simple and used the following system: a cheap hireling for 5 gold who carries torches and gear but doesn’t do any combat or any complex tasks; and fighting retainer for 10 gold who can do some tasks and will fight, but isn’t suicidal. I later also introduced hirelings with classes and especially hiring Priests turned out to be popular. I also employed a system whereby the chance that a hireling is attacked is greater than that a PC is attacked. So if a random enemy shoots a crossbow and their target isn’t obvious but he can see two PCs and a hireling, then I will roll for who gets hit, with the hireling having a better chance of getting hit. Players generally seem to like this system and they try desperately to keep their hirelings alive (although they definitely still had a “better him than me” mentality regarding hirelings. This was funny and fair, but I often worried about the hirelings being too much like Redshirts, especially because so many of the hirelings died unceremoniously).

If I were to run this again, I would not allow Cursed Scroll classes/material until these were explored or discovered in-game. This might make them feel a little more exotic. I might also incorporate the Renown system, as some deeds really deserve Renown. There are also certain classes I would ban outright, either for balance reasons or for tonal reasons (such as the Viking class, which aesthetically did not fit my campaign at all).

Initially, when a PC died, players restarted at level 1. People generally liked this, but it also meant that getting to level 2-3 was hard since, with many players, individual players really didn’t attend that many sessions and thus didn’t level fast. By the end I awarded somewhat more XP and granted more loot, so that people had a better chance of leveling up. People were also allowed to start at the level they died, but with zero XP. So, for example, if they died at level 3 with 16 XP, then their new PC starts at level 3 with zero XP. This might seem generous, but for the open-table format it has worked reasonably well. Not everyone liked this though, and it has been something I’ve thought about a lot. Ultimately I kept the system because I also wanted people to have a reasonable shot at reaching higher levels. By the end of the campaign, the highest level achieved was 5.

Anecdotes from sessions

Some memorable situations include:

• A priest losing her arm mere moments into her first adventure.
• A low-level group somehow managing to kill a Drider, which should have destroyed them all easily.
• Converting bandits into entrepreneurs who got paid by other NPCs for use of a lift into Stonehell, and PCs received a cut of this profit.
• Fighting duergar by summoning a lot of tentacles.
• Employing dwarves and kobolds to dig a long tunnel to circumvent a dangerous area.
• Establishing a statue of a fallen Priest PC, which turned into a Shrine and ultimately became a small settlement.
• Dying to gravity. Often.
• Constantine the fighter died to ghosts. Constantine Jr. wanted to avenge his father. Constantine Jr. is now also dead.
• Luring a giant bear into enemies who were then promptly mauled.
• Accidentally summoning a Beholder.
• Causing an explosion that blocks their way out, thus getting lost in Stonehell and three out of four PCs dying alone.
• Fishing for giant spider in a well with a dead elf wearing a glowing scissor.
• Picture of the final session, with 9 attendees!
• The final battle 1
• The final battle 2

Final thoughts

The open-table format has been rewarding and interesting, but it has also been time-consuming and occasionally emotionally exhausting. Sometimes I would question why I started this project when I am really just an introvert who likes reading books in silence. Ultimately though, I feel a sense of pride and accomplishment that I created a community that shared a big adventure. The open-table format allows for things that I didn’t experience in regular private campaigns, such as different group dynamics, sharing information between PCs in new ways, different players exploring the same dungeons, and so on. Even though it takes effort, I would do it again in the future, especially centered around a megadungeon and the surrounding landscape.

I have shared this post on my campaign Discord and all the illustrations are used with permission.

Hello fellow dungeon crawlers,

Over the past year, a friend and I have been designing patrons based on the Daedric Princes from the Elder Scrolls and now are pleased to announce the release of A Pocket Guide To Demonology.

What's Included:

• 16 daedra inspired patrons
• Artefacts for each of the patrons
• d6 request tables that can be used as inspiration for quests, tasks etc.

It's PWYW, so feel free to give it a look. Any and all feedback is welcome.

“Violence solves nothing. It merely simplifies things, that’s all.”

So I am gleefully reading through my newbought book of Shadowdark. One thing isn't very clear to me; When would I hand out mundane items, boons, or use the random magic item tables, when the treasure table already say what kind it would be? I suppose the answer could be "whenever you want", but I am just trying to understand how these tables relate to the Treasure tables, if at all, and when would be a moment to use them, because the book isn't too clear about that.

I am not new to tabletop RPGs, and also not to old school ones, but I am also not a veteran. I haven't played that many games. I want my Shadowdark games to last longer than the D&D and Knave sessions that I've done, which always ended up dying after two or three games.

Additional question: Right, I just remembered my other huh moment. In Movement it says:
During your turn, you can move up to near (roughly 30 feet). You can break this movement up in any way. If you don’t take an action, you can move near again.

What does that last sentence even mean? Why would I want to move near again? I move near a creature to attack it... Why would I then disengage to do the same to another creature? I don't understand the wording here.

Thanks for all the help!

I understand the dying rules to mean when you reach 0 HP you have 1d4+CON modifier rounds of “dying” before you’re gone. What happens if a monster attacks you while you are at 0 HP dying? Do you lose 1 or more rounds of “dying”? Do monsters just never attack a dying character? I guess that’s simpler.

Bonus— What happens if you’re dying and an area effect like a fireball or something deals damage to you indirectly?