Keep On The Borderline

Celebrim

Legend
Sure: I suggest that you write more cogently in the future.

You see, now we are at an impasse, because a big part of my "self-indulgent rant" was pointing out how devoid of meaning terms like "Story Now" actually are and how impossible it is for anyone to grasp what someone that throws out Forge speak like that particularly means by it, since even the term's creators never settled on a meaning that satisfied them. Nor has GNS actually held up as a framework over time, and I'm not sure anyone seriously considers it the big picture any more. And the reason I don't debate this sort of thing with pemerton is that I got tired of his frequently self-contradictory word salad of Forge speak, where at some point I stopped being convinced pemerton even had private definitions for the words he was using. I was all too frequently reminded of that Bill Watterson script where Calvin says, "The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"

My take on this is you haven't actually said a darn thing in this thread that is cogent. You are just thread crapping because you don't like that someone doesn't like a module you do like, and so you're more interested in being insulting to the participants than actually developing your own ideas.

So, again, we are at an impasse. You think I'm obscuring a lack of meaning with verbosity, and I think you're obscuring a lack of meaning behind vapid jargon.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
My take on this is you haven't actually said a darn thing in this thread that is cogent. You are just thread crapping because you don't like that someone doesn't like a module you do like, and so you're more interested in being insulting to the participants than actually developing your own ideas.
I sought to lift up a post that spoke well to what I regard as an appeal of KotB, and I did so. I then added how others have used KotB for other popular modes of play. You responded in a rant that sought to debate the merits of those terms. That is not a debate that I find particularly relevant for this thread. I doubt that [MENTION=6984451]ParanoydStyle[/MENTION] was seeking for such things in this thread. But people have self-professedly used it for Sandbox or Story Now play regardless of whether you find this jargon meaningful or not. But discussing KotB seems more on-topic than debating jargon.

I'm not sure I agree, simply because I've pulled modules out that have plenty of moving parts and adapted 'sandboxed' them (at least in a narrow-broad-narrow framework).
Again, I believe that this is indicative of gamemastering preferences. Some have an easier time adding things. Some have an easier time altering/removing them.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
My take on this is you haven't actually said a darn thing in this thread that is cogent. You are just thread crapping because you don't like that someone doesn't like a module you do like, and so you're more interested in being insulting to the participants than actually developing your own ideas.


And my take on this is that you are getting rude and personal about a disagreement, and that you are going to stop doing so right now.

For all the thought you guys put into your positions, you apparently cannot remember that this kind of approach is going to make sides dig in, rather than open up and learn from each other. Or, worse, maybe you can remember, and choose not to....

Either way, both of you stop it now, please and thank you. Treat each other with kindness and respect - apply the Golden Rule - or you will find yourselves removed from the conversation entirely.
 

ParanoydStyle

Peace Among Worlds
Okay, moderator came in and moderated but I was going to say...please do simmer down guys. (I'm kind of unused to not being the guy in the middle of the fight, but I think I like it.)

Without getting too deep into controversial topics, I just want to say that in general "they left it blank/unfinished so you can fill it in yourself" is very seldom a good defense of any gaming product. When I buy a game, I am buying rules, so if the game say doesn't have rules for social combat and I have the "opportunity" to make up my own, that's not a selling point. Magical tea party is free and everyone already has it. Likewise, I don't think the fact that not one NPC in either the Keep nor the Caves (nor as far as I know anywhere between) has a name or personality is a selling point for KotB. The point of modules is I think largely to save the DM work. The funny thing is, Keep does this for the HARD PART (the mapping, the dungeon stocking, the logistics) and doesn't do it for something easier and more basic (giving characters names and/or personalities, giving the PCs a motivation to be there/go to the caves). But I mean, what I also understand is that it's from a different era and comparing it to the standards of today is pretty absurd. I think Adventurers Will Adventure To Adventure For The Sake Of Adventuring was pretty much all the motivation you needed in 1979. But a lot has changed since then.

I doubt that @ParanoydStyle was seeking for such things in this thread.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's safe to say I technically know Ron Edwards personally, and unrelatedly I wouldn't be in this business without the Forge, but on the other hand I think that *World is possibly the worst RPG ever made (to achieve popularity, anyway) and I generally find storygame zealots intolerable, so yes I have talked and thought this whole GNS thing to death from every possible angle at this point.

EDIT: Also, some of the encounters in this module are just friggin' bonkers on their own. Without some serious outside-the-box thinking, I don't know what a low-level, pre-Fireball party in ANY edition of this game ever printed is supposed to do about room #6 for instance, where they are confronted with 40 KOBOLDS (that's not counting an additional 8 Kobold children who don't fight and just make things morally awkward after you massacre their parents: those 40 males and females explicitly fight to defend their patch). Like from AD&D to 3.5 to 5E that just does not seem like a remotely winnable fight, not to mention being a nightmare for the DM (because at this level, the exact tactical positioning of the kobolds does matter, so I hope you like keeping track of 40 NPCs to control, DM!).
 
Last edited:

Celebrim

Legend
Also, some of the encounters in this module are just friggin' bonkers on their own. Without some serious outside-the-box thinking, I don't know what a low-level, pre-Fireball party in ANY edition of this game ever printed is supposed to do about room #6 for instance, where they are confronted with 40 KOBOLDS (that's not counting an additional 8 Kobold children who don't fight and just make things morally awkward after you massacre their parents: those 40 males and females explicitly fight to defend their patch). Like from AD&D to 3.5 to 5E that just does not seem like a remotely winnable fight, not to mention being a nightmare for the DM (because at this level, the exact tactical positioning of the kobolds does matter, so I hope you like keeping track of 40 NPCs to control, DM!).

When I've run it, it becomes a simple process of putting a pair of fighters with plate and shield (or chain and shield if you go after the kobolds first) into a 10' wide corridor (or better yet a doorway), such that no more than a couple of kobolds can face the party at a time, and then regardless of how many attacks they are facing, the kobold need nearly a 20 to hit the party, while the party can rather easily hit the kobolds in return and generally lethally if they do. Also, remember, we generally started with a large party of 8-12 characters (2 per player), plus henchmen, dogs, and men-at-arms hirelings. So, yeah, you can win those fights with even low level characters, but they are a nightmare of tedium to go through because its just dice grindy at that point.

And it doesn't really let up. Pretty much every fight in the whole module is like that. There is a fight with 20 skeletons and 20 zombies as pretty much the climax of the adventure in the Temple.

This is pretty typical of Gygax, in that Gygax is expecting 12 players who are all former wargamers at his table, and thinking of D&D in part as a tactical wargame generation device. You see the same thing in the G series and the same thing in the WG4 and the same thing with the bandits in the moat house in T1, with a mass combat being a big part of the game, and the players expected to adopt hit and run commando tactics, make generous use of flaming oil, and to wear down the foes by fleeing and returning multiple times if needed.

And for me, the real problem here is even if you are claiming maps and stat blocks and encounters are the really valuable part of a module, and the really hard part of a module, the problem is that none of this stuff is really even that good, either by the standards of the day or Gygax's own best work. I enjoyed it as a kid, but only in the same way that I can remember playing the card game 'war' as a kid. Monotony meant different things to me then.

And back to the incoherence part of it, in the worst of Gygax designs what you see is that the stronghold of the monsters is more or less entirely working against them. Those 10' wide corridors and guard rooms that the monsters defend are their own death trap. If they just sallied forth from their lair and surrounded the party on open ground, they'd probably win. In the same way, if the frost giants in the glacier rift, just sallied forth from their glacier rift, they'd easily overwhelm the PC party. But Gygax is designing the terrain so that if the PC's fight it in the intended manner with the monsters being stupid, then with "clever play" like making use of chokepoints and doorways, then the valiant party will get through it.
 


pemerton

Legend
Furthermore, if you wish to debate how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ran KotB, then I would advise you to discuss the matter with the appropriate person.
Celebrim has me blocked, for whatever reason.

Which makes it odd that he wants to argue about my GMing!
 

pemerton

Legend
so many people today complain about player agency and railroading and how terrible the old school days were, and yet, when they look at modules such as B2, they are concerned about the lack of hooks within the module itself.
But are they the same people?

I personally think the Caves - as mapped and stocked - are not terribly interesting for "story now" play (to use the term [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has been using in this thread). The idea of the Caves, on the other hand, is part of what underpins the Keep, and I think the Keep can be fun for Story Now play because it does have an internal logic: various NPCs (evil priest, castellan, etc) trying to do their thing within the context of a bastion against the Chaos.

I've used the module twice - once about 30 years ago, once a few years agao as per the post linked upthread - and both times it's the Keep that has been the site of action. And both times I've used bits and pieces of the Caves - moslty the evil temple - but not always keeping the B2 geography and often not even keeping the B2 contents (which is the opposite of what [MENTION=6859536]Monayuris[/MENTION] has talked about) but keeping some ot the theme of the Caves.

To provide a point of contrast, X2 Castle Amber is another old module that I've used twice in the past 20 years, but it doesn't lend itself to the same treatment as the Keep. Or at least, if it is I haven't worked out how to do it! Both times I've run it, I haven't seen any way to use it other than as written - a "dungeon crawl" through the Chateau.

So I don't agree with the idea (not yours, necessarily, but one that seems to have some currency in some posts in this thread) that B2 offers nothing distinctive compared to other early modules.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top