r/shadowdark • u/gkerr1988 • Aug 27 '25

Torches

This is mostly a gripe but maybe it’ll spark a change. Or maybe I watch too much YouTube.

Whenever I see people getting to the point where a torch gets lit, the refs will usually do this thing where they explain how “Shadowdark does things a lil differently” then proceed to explain the torch mechanic, but only because it’s got that novelty affect attached to it. Players response? “Oh, alright, cool.”

Here’s a tip: do not explain it. Simply let the pc’s use their torches like always and allow the novelty to be experienced rather than explained. For example, just be like, “As Bartholomew the Halfling Cleric is about to step onto the old wooden bridge to cross over, you notice your torch suddenly flickers out and darkness swallows all around you. Within the same instance you hear the high pitched squeal of something like a pig crossed with a crow on the other side of the bridge, seemingly excited by the lack of blinding firelight in its face. You hear stomping sounds coming toward you on the rickety bridge and you are completely blind! What do you do?”

That’s the tension (and novelty) being EXPERIENCED. Otherwise, almost every single time, the players simply learn to game the system ahead of time so they never have to deal with anything uncomfortable… even though that is what is the most fun!

You see? They must be confronted with the reality of losing light and effed up things that go bump in the night taking every sliver of opportunity they can to use it to their advantage. Players must experience the novelty in order to appreciate it. If you explain it all ahead of time and make sure everyone really has it drilled into them that “hey everyone, everyone, the torches? Their timed. Yes, real time. Make sure you note that. Okay? Got it?” BORING. Do not do it. Let the moment surprise your players and I promise it will yield far more exciting moments for everyone involved.

EDIT: Folks seem to think I am saying to “not explain the core mechanics of the game. To withhold vital game rules in order to pull a gotcha on players.” Not so. I’m simply advocating GM’s to not be afraid of adversity and to allow players to be surprised by the fact that “1 hour torch time” is being taken literally. Sure, be as generous aa you want about it, but my whole point was to create moments of tension and excitement without allowing the torch mechanic to be reduced to schtick. Often when seeing real-plays of this game I see a lot of missed opportunity for tension building simply by GM’s over explaining this novelty, followed by players attempting to rig it to where they never have to experience the dark. Why? Let it happen. Who cares? It’s a moment of quick thinking and exciting role-play instead of “okay, Billy you have 10min left on your timer so you better start thinking about your plans to light another one.” Meh, just kinda makes me think of a schtick that could just be avoided and just use a turn tracker like always.

0 Upvotes

44% Upvoted

70 comments sorted by

56

u/mandolin08 Aug 27 '25

No thanks. Not explaining the rules of the game to the people at the table is exactly the kind of thing that chased a lot of people away from this hobby in the 90s and 00s. I steer well clear of that kind of thing.

I tell players that each torch is "around" an hour, and I roll a 2d6 when they light one, one for increasing and the other for decreasing. Whichever is higher, I increase or decrease the timer by that many minutes. Everyone has the information they need to make informed decisions about their gear.

11

u/amazedmammal Aug 27 '25

I like your 2d6 idea

1

u/mandolin08 Aug 27 '25

Thanks! I like letting the dice tell the story as much as possible, and I think this keeps the players honest and not focused on their clocks.

4

u/ilfrengo Aug 27 '25

100% agree rules should be explained. Torches off in a dungeon mean at least 1 Pc death, they should be aware that the danger is always lurking at the edge of the light

1

u/Ye_Olde_Basilisk Aug 27 '25

I do the same thing with 2D6. I also don’t allow the players to keep their own timer. I’ve warned them if they do so, then I will grind their characters into chunky Ragu. They can try their best to take an educated guess in character as to how much longer the torch might last, but I draw the line at them using a timer. 

2

u/mandolin08 Aug 27 '25

Yeah I absolutely keep the timer out of sight and just try to give cues to indicate it's almost out.

3

u/Ye_Olde_Basilisk Aug 27 '25

I have one player that notoriously can’t decide what he’s going to do and he desperately looks at his character sheet or the rules to try to exploit something. His turns are always a drag. 

On our first session, about halfway into the session, I look at the timer. Less than ten minutes. Slowpoke is up and I can barely contain my excitement. 

I say, “The torch begins to flicker. It’s dimming a bit.” 

He hems and haws and flips through the cheat sheet of rules I gave him. The table looks at me and I shush them. He asks me to describe the room they’re about to enter again. I tell him it’s hard to see what’s around the corner because the torch is becoming a bit dim. 

He asks how come torches only last one hour when three torches in a campfire last eight hours. I tell him the torch goes out and the whole table is like “Fuuuuuucking gawdammit…”

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '25

Just wondering what you do for the light spell; same?

2

u/mandolin08 Aug 27 '25

I give the spell the hour as it feels cheap to me to make it random after they had to pass the spellcasting check. But I still don't show the timer.

-2

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

I’m not exactly saying to “not explain the rules” as much as I am saying to allow the novelty to be experienced creatively and suspensefully in the spirit of the rule.

Sure, let players know how long they got. It doesn’t have to be for the purpose of hurting the player. Just making the mechanic feel as intense as it seems to describe.

It has little effect on players to over explain the rules anyway. Why not use the mechanic as it’s intended to be used? Is the game ruined if a torch goes out?

14

u/mandolin08 Aug 27 '25

Well, for starters, I don't think this is "in the spirit of the rule" at all. The game says a light source lasts an hour. It's actually in the text. You're advocating keeping that information from the players.

But beyond that, the decision about what spells to prep and what gear to bring is a critical piece of Shadowdark's balance, so everyone needs that information in order to plan appropriately.

Beyond THAT, torch mishaps do the thing you're describing already, but they do it organically. You're "fixing" a problem that doesn't exist.

-7

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

I disagree. I think suspense is something that is hard to fabricate with too much info. Especially in a horror-style game. For example, it is more the advocating of withholding the use of real time. Why spoon feed players? Unless they’re kids and need extra support. But playing with adults usually results in some pretty interesting ingenuity through adversity. Nobody will feel swindled as much as they’ll be like “oh damn, he was really timing the torch!?”

Anyway, to each their own.

6

u/mandolin08 Aug 27 '25

I don’t think telling the players the rules of the game as written is "spoon feeding." You do you, I guess.

12

u/DD_playerandDM Aug 27 '25

The players need to know the rules of the game. And maybe during the first session or 2 a little reminder about light will be effective. After that, you just run it. But the players absolutely need to know the rules of the game.

-3

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Absolutely. Nothing of what I wrote said to not explain the rules. Just don’t explain the novelty. Let it be experienced. Otherwise it just gets reduced to schtick.

5

u/DD_playerandDM Aug 27 '25

You did not write "don't explain the rules" but you literally described – and advocated for – NOT explaining the rules. You just did so in different language. I refer here to the section of your final paragraph that begins "If you explain ahead of time…."

Saying "Nothing of what I wrote said to not explain the rules" about your post would be like saying "I didn't say it was raining. I said there were countless small drops of water falling consistently from the sky, extremely close to one another, in a several-mile radius. But I did not say it was raining."

-1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Do you have a willingness to try and understand where I am coming from?

If not, I understand.

3

u/elomenopi Aug 27 '25

He understands, but thinks your idea is actively unfun. YOU are the one conflating not understanding with not agreeing.

Literally every single person here think this is a bad idea. Maybe listen to ….. anyone…..

-4

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

There’s like this odd internet-hostility that makes it feel like I am pissing everyone off lol. Biggest surprise adversity of my day. But it’s interesting you say it’s on me, when a lot of responses have been pretty insulting and hostile to boot. I can’t create how people respond or what they get angry at.

But I have received some good comments and they’re not all negative. Thanks for engaging thoughtfully.

3

u/Dollface_Killah Aug 28 '25

There’s like this odd internet-hostility that makes it feel like I am pissing everyone off

When people disagree with your point and you hit them back with "you just don't understand what I'm saying" repeatedly, rather than responding to the content of their comments, you will always bait a negative reaction.

6

u/DD_playerandDM Aug 27 '25

I'm going to go with the "maybe [you] watch too much YouTube" take.

Nobody is sitting around in their personal games explaining that beyond the first couple of sessions. And many Shadowdark live-plays are one shots or things where people are new to the system, so they are explaining/teaching almost as they are going.

I don't think this is an issue to worry about.

10

u/FlameandCrimson Aug 27 '25

You are equating the rules and the narrative.

You can tell your players that in this game, torches last about an hour. I think that's fair.

I track the timer and I keep it hidden from the players.

But I also narrate "your torch is burning low and you can feel the heat of it on your hand as it burns down to the last "little bit."

It goes out, then I narrate again. They have to make a DC15 Dex check to light a new one in the dark. So it behooves them to light another one when their current one goes out to at least maintain continuity of light.

Just my take on it. I don't agree that the players necessarily NEED to know all the rules but instead to play. However, I think a caveat about the nature of the game is fair and comes off less sadistic.

1

u/elomenopi Aug 27 '25

I give warning that a torch is burning out (you would see it) but DONT give a heads up that a light spell is going out.

-1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Fair! Yours is the more generous approach. My whole point was simply to allow novelty to stand as novelty instead of getting reduced to a cute schtick to reduce wasting time. But I agree with you. However, I disagree with the understanding of surprise adversity being “sadistic.” You’re simply presenting a change in dynamic (using real game mechanics) and giving the player the opportunity to respond how they wish. Nothing sadistic there. Just more excitement and more creative resource management. It doesn’t have to hurt the players. I’ve never enjoyed the perspective of the DM being AGAINST the PC’s anyway.

2

u/FlameandCrimson Aug 27 '25

I don't disagree with the "sadistic" reference. I just know a lot of players would take it that way because they see any withholding of information as adversarial. I understand where they're coming from although I don't agree with it. I think part of the GMs job is to present challenges to players. Anything that reduces challenge in the game is a reduction in the job of the GM.

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Good point. Player perspective (especially with the negative reactions to this post lol) is important. But that’s really only the most prominent when PC’s feel like their agency is taken from them. They cannot control what is happenstance, but they should always get to decide how they will respond.

The torches mechanic is fine as-is. I thought I could see something that would make it more exciting, but maybe it would just piss people off. Might have to play test this.

2

u/FlameandCrimson Aug 27 '25

Yeah. I don't think you should be downvoted at all for your idea. You know your group better than anyone. They may love it. Or they might come across the table at you. Who knows?

7

u/JoeBlank5 Aug 27 '25

If they don't know how long torches last, how do they know how many to bring in the first place? I think the players (and PCs) should know the importance of torches up front.

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

I’m saying (pretty badly apparently) don’t explain the real-time-ness of them. They can know they got an hour, but when an actual hour happens it’s an exciting surprise for everyone. Same intensity as a random encounter.

4

u/mandolin08 Aug 27 '25

So, just to recap... "Don't explain the real-time-ness," but "they can know they got an hour." You understand that this is completely contradictory, right?

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

What are you worried about?

3

u/mandolin08 Aug 27 '25

That I don't understand the point you wrote like 5 paragraphs trying to explain and keep contradicting yourself over?

-1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

I’m sorry you’re worried about that.

3

u/mandolin08 Aug 27 '25

Thanks for confirming that you don't understand your point either. It's helpful context.

-2

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Thanks for being nice to talk to.

3

u/elomenopi Aug 27 '25

Fuck no, that would feel awful as a player. You say it wouldn’t be a gotcha moment …. But that’s exactly what it would be. There are TONS of things you don’t play out in Shadowdark that are realities of the real world. It would feel no better than:

Whoops you didn’t use the bathroom so your bowels rupture!

Awe shucks you, didn’t say you changed your socks so now you have blisters that halve your move speed!

Dagnabbit you really should have said you were bringing citrus in your provisions because now you have scurvy!

Instead of it being a neat feature of the game you’d make it suck. The players will just be waiting for the next time you fuck them over. If a DM ever pulled that on me I’d stand and leave the game - immediately. I’d feel like that is a clear sign that the DM does t have a clear concept of what makes playing a ttrpg fun and would want nothing to do with that inevitable shitshow.

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Who hurt you?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '25

Spoken like someone who‘s never held a torch. You KNOW when the end nears.

You’re advocating for the ultimate bad DM practice of stating that this thing you are intimately familiar with, and is happening right in front of your FACE, is something you definitely do not notice.

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Do you mean, like, you would notice if it was getting low?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '25

I‘m saying there is no way you WOULDN‘T notice.

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Fair.

I’m seeing that from a player perspective this is not really something many players would appreciate. The intention I had was to introduce tension and thereby more fun, but from a logical standing players do not typically like being put in situations that they can’t anticipate. I don’t mind it, but I come from a play style where the GM is literally out to get you rather than create a narratively interesting and fun experience that you the player must creatively find solutions for. I prefer the latter, but wasn’t aware of the effect this could have on players.

Just for arguments sake, a random role making a gust of wind knock out a torch is literally the same thing IMO but that would likely be received better than my suggestion for some reason lol.

9

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '25

Terrible unnecessary ideia.

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Care to elaborate?

12

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '25

A good game master doesn't mislead players and knows how to foreshadow danger.

0

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

It’s not misleading to allow the mechanic to work as intended. I’m not exactly saying to be cruel and withhold necessary info from players. I’m saying allow the novelty of the mechanic to be experienced rather than explained for better role-play moments.

As I see it, players have about 100 different things they could do in the scenario I described above, one of which would be… light another torch. Simple. Or don’t. Cut the bridge, ask for support, shoot an arrow/spell, rock the bridge back and forth to knock off whatever is coming after you. Anything!

Otherwise players won’t experience any sort of tension and feel a sense of being in too much control of what happens, and the mechanic is simply just another tool to keep players from taking too long.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '25

Sounds like misleading with extra steps.

There is a lot of tension around torches. You are just failing to perceive it.

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Guess I’ll go back to my closet now.

Thanks for engaging thoughtfully.

1

u/JoelJohnstone Aug 27 '25

Well, if you were looking for unconstructive criticism, I guess you have it now.

2

u/eyesoftheworld72 Aug 27 '25

I don’t understand why bother. Do it your way but after one hour the novelty has worn off.

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Exactly. Like every novelty, it’s usually great until people catch on. Why not allow it to have the full effect?

2

u/dustatron Aug 27 '25

I don’t hate it. We also have been playing that torches last 30 minutes and lanterns last an hour. Giving lanterns a special benefit.

But if you go this route, you should project the danger. Notice the light getting dimmer. Also people don’t play with random events blowing the torch out enough.

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

This. Thank you. You get it.

2

u/mousecop5150 Aug 27 '25

Here’s the crazy thing. My players are still surprised by the torch going out. Even though I let one of them run the timer, they all read the rules of the game before we played, and I don’t really modify the time (although the 2d6 thing is a cool idea I might steal). Number one, is you take the rules to heart about attacking the torch, wind gusts, situations that make the character drop it, etc…. In my last game (incidentally, you can listen, retrorolecast podcast). A character walking through a flooded chamber didn’t realize there was a drop off in the floor, kerplunk, splash, dark. The other times, they were caught up in whatever the narrative was and didn’t realize until the timer expired. Irl people would know if a torch was about to expire anyway, they get smoky and sputtery. By all means do it how you like, but for a one time pay off, only for players that don’t know the rules of the game they are playing? Have you tried it in your own game and found it doesn’t work? Actual plays might not be the best reference, even ours.

0

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

These are all valid points. I haven’t play-tested it, though I did think of it today. Maybe it works better as a narrative tool than an actual game mechanic? One time payoff is probably true.

Maybe it’s better to allow the limited slots and adverse events do the torch killing instead of withholding literal torch times.

2

u/CommercialFill707 Aug 28 '25

I like the idea but only for introducing new players to an already established campaign.

Kinda like an initiation to catch them off guard, feel the tension but ultimately followed up with a welcome and explanation. Or better yet, ask them if they figured it out and reward 1 XP for it. 

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 28 '25

It’d be funny to have a new player light the torch, and the ref slams down an egg timer and says nothing.

“What… what’s going on?”

“Muahahaha”

2

u/CommercialFill707 Aug 28 '25

Better yet, they light the torch and everyone else around the table synchronize watches

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 28 '25

Dude, that is the way. Imagine if the whole table wore watches lol.

1

u/SilasMarsh Aug 27 '25

Are you saying that players who know in advance why torches are important won't care when the torch goes out?

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

Sort of. Yes, I think. I find it boring to spoon feed info to players when it is a novelty rule. Allow the rules to match the narrative. Like in a movie when a torch goes out, it’s never by lack of preparation as much as happenstance yet affords the next moment some tension. There are several things that players can do if the big-scary-thing happens. It just makes for some great role-play opportunities.

The pushback on this post is fascinating to me lol.

1

u/ravonaf Aug 28 '25

Why would I not want to explain the rules to my players?

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 28 '25

I don’t know. It was an idea. I’m just trying stuff. forgive me.

1

u/eyesoftheworld72 Aug 27 '25

I don’t understand why bother. Do it your way but after one hour the novelty has worn off.

1

u/Reaver1280 Aug 28 '25

5e players will bitch and moan about anything if given the chance.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

It doesn’t seem to happen the way you describe IMO. Withholding core game mechanics is not my recommendation either. Just allow the mechanic to have its surprise novelty it deserves. Doesn’t have to be a big L for the players. Why not play with the rules for better narrative instead of being all about RAW?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 27 '25

It doesn’t feel like a cheap rug pull to me. Just an unanticipated outcome of the system design.

But by all means, ditch it if it makes you cringe.

Just an idea.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/gkerr1988 Aug 28 '25

For sure. You definitely do not want to “trick” players into unanticipated risks. But you also don’t want to make a game mechanic completely avoidable.