For those who aren’t familiar, Four Against Darkness is a solo pen-and-paper dungeon crawler. You control four characters of various classes at a time. You roll dice, a table shows you which dungeon room or corridor to draw, then you roll again for its contents, etc. In the base game, all combat and all actions are resolved with a simple d6.

Normally, I would balk at this. A d6 simply doesn’t permit sufficient resolution. It leaves little room for depth of mechanics. And to be fair, the base game isn’t really all that interesting (to me) because of its lack of depth.

But - and here’s the thing - there’s so much extra content you can get for this game. Adventures, new classes, new mechanics (some of which involves other dice than the d6 although the base mechanic of the game is always based on the d6 as far as I’m aware), etc. For example, the excellent Treacheries of the Troublesome Towns supplement (which comes in two books) adds the ability to enter towns where you will meet all sorts of characters. There are even options for romance, having children, buying a house, and becoming the mayor of the town - there’s so much that can happen. And that’s just one of the (around 50, I think?) supplements that are out there.

So, in summary, I find myself fascinated by this game despite its lack of complex mechanics, simply because there is so much content for it. If you want, you could think of it as not very deep (read: simple mechanics), but very wide (read: lots of available content).

What are your thoughts on games like this?

  • Christer EnforsOPMEnglish
    2·
    3 months ago

    I generally find complex mechanics substitute for a deep engagement with the world.

    You mean you’re completely fine without deep mechanics, as long as the world is engaging, correct? Just so I understand you.

    Quite the contrary, I think in ideal design there is no real difference between the world and the mechanics. They are both simply lists of facts about the alternate reality, is to say ‘a 3rd level thief has an 87% chance to climb shear surfaces’ really that different to ‘a fire needs fuel, oxygen, and heat’, or alternatively, ‘fire needs phlogisticated matter and good air to sustain itself’.

    Hmm. I guess my problem (typically) with simple mechanics is that when I attack someone, let’s say, I want many things to affect the outcome:

    • My strength
    • The quality and type of weapon I’m using (with many varying options available)
    • My skill

    But this isn’t really feasible with a single d6 roll (because the +3 from my strength, the +1 from my weapon, and the +2 from my skill “overwhelm” the simple 1 to 6 range of the d6. But like I said, despite this “shortcoming” (in my view) of Four Against Darkness, I’m surprised to say that I still enjoy it because its width of contents compensates for its lack of depth of mechanics.

    • petoEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      I guess that makes sense. Personally I am not to frustrated by the idea that a situation (or even a character’s skill) should push the dice to a level that they are not so important. Getting this balance right is pretty hard, WotC’s current D&D for instance makes it that for the most part, specialisation counts for very little and you are often at the mercy of the d20, and situational bonuses are largely an all or nothing affair.

      Of course I’m not really commenting much on Four Against Darkness’s particular implementation. More that I think it is a bit reductive to look at just the die mechanic as the full extent of the game’s mechanics.