TSR The Cult of Abaddon - Release from NuTSR/TheEvilDM

[Thunderfoot]

@Morrus they are using your name, sue for copyright. lol.

The falling damage is pretty much the old 1e/2e damage. 1d6 per 10'. It's written so wonky however, that sussing that out takes a re-read or three...

 

[Stormonu]

I guess the falling damage thing is “to make sure” people aren’t using the compiled damage Gary once noted as being the intended way to calculate falling damage (i.e., a 30 ft. fall would be 6D6; 1d6 for 10 feet, 2d6 for the next 10 feet, 3d6 for the third 10 feet). But an absolutely horrible way it was written out, and rather unneccessary all-in-all.

 

[Jer]

I guess the falling damage thing is “to make sure” people aren’t using the compiled damage Gary once noted as being the intended way to calculate falling damage (i.e., a 30 ft. fall would be 6D6; 1d6 for 10 feet, 2d6 for the next 10 feet, 3d6 for the third 10 feet). But an absolutely horrible way it was written out, and rather unneccessary all-in-all.

It's really confusing the way they've written it - it's listed as 3d6 damage but actually it should be 6d6 except we'll never mention the actual final calculation of 6d6 in our example and end it with "making it 3d6" so that it feels like the final calculation ends with the roll being 3d6.

Also having a special falling damage rule in a module is a weird thing anyway unless its there because the adventure really features falling such that you don't want the GM to use whatever falling damage rules are in the OSR ruleset they're using - like is it a mountain climbing adventure or something?

 

[Faolyn]

I know this isn't the main thing wrong here but why are there "scare quotes" around "fresh water"? And that the word Water is capitalized in that last sentence. Do we find out later that there's something wrong with the water? Are there stats for The Water in the back where its revealed that its actually some kind of monster? Is "fresh water" a game term defined elsewhere? (That would at least make some sense since the first sentence already implies that the water is drinkable).

My thought is that whatever OSR game or edition they're using (or just their own table) differentiates fresh water from contaminated water; i.e., the river is safe to drink from. And then they forgot to specify that in the text of the game.

 

[jdrakeh]

Probably because most Americans wouldn’t think of water with fish in it as drinkable (“fresh”) water.

I consider myself representative of "most Americans" and I don't think that the presence of fish in a river makes the water undrinkable.

 

[adamantyr]

My thought is that whatever OSR game or edition they're using (or just their own table) differentiates fresh water from contaminated water; i.e., the river is safe to drink from. And then they forgot to specify that in the text of the game.

If the water (and it's quality therein) is not a part of the adventure, then the paragraph is completely redundant and pointless to even have.

I recognize the style though. A lot of the oldest D&D modules would do that because they were locked into the idea of "We have to describe everything so the DM can run a proper simulation." Somehow I don't think a DM is going to be like "Oh no, the players are asking me if the water is safe to drink. WHAT DO I TELL THEM?!"

 

[Faolyn]

I consider myself representative of "most Americans" and I don't think that the presence of fish in a river makes the water undrinkable.

It's not the fish. Well, no, it is the fish. And their poop, and the parasites, and metal particulates, and the rotting animal carcasses upstream (some of which were fish), and toxic plants and algae, and lots of other nasty stuff.

It's why basically every culture has either beer or tea--both of those things make the water safe(r) to drink.

If the water (and it's quality therein) is not a part of the adventure, then the paragraph is completely redundant and pointless to even have.

I recognize the style though. A lot of the oldest D&D modules would do that because they were locked into the idea of "We have to describe everything so the DM can run a proper simulation." Somehow I don't think a DM is going to be like "Oh no, the players are asking me if the water is safe to drink. WHAT DO I TELL THEM?!"

And this as well. I seem to recall something in the 1e DMG about rolling each month to see if you picked up a disease.

But yeah. I can very much see saying that there's a river that connects the two towns, since it provides atmosphere. But anything else--including have the second town, which appears to have little or no bearing on this adventure--is unnecessary.

 

[Thunderfoot]

The original reason for the 'over descriptive' text was in 1e, there were no rolls for basic searches.

So if you didn't say there was a table in the room, there was no way to check the table leg for the hidden 'Ring of Feather Fall'.

In modern gaming, it might be good flavor text (if it's well written anyway) but it's also mostly unnecessary.

 

[Deset Gled]

If the water (and it's quality therein) is not a part of the adventure, then the paragraph is completely redundant and pointless to even have.

But yeah. I can very much see saying that there's a river that connects the two towns, since it provides atmosphere. But anything else--including have the second town, which appears to have little or no bearing on this adventure--is unnecessary.

This is an area where I will come to the adventure's defense. The water is being cursed by the cult, and is killing people in both towns. Stopping the curse (and fixing the water supply) is the central plot. This is spelled out in the next few paragraphs.

 

[jdrakeh]

This is an area where I will come to the adventure's defense. The water is being cursed by the cult, and is killing people in both towns. Stopping the curse (and fixing the water supply) is the central plot. This is spelled out in the next few paragraphs.

Well, that makes more sense.