D&D (2024) Heroes of the Borderlands

[Staffan]

I think it's 13th Age that has dungeons as living eldritch entities, creeping up from beneath the surface. That's always seemed like a neat idea to me, and truly caves of chaos.

I believe the idea was broached in the 3e book Dungeonscape, but 13th age made it a canon part of the setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

how do you distinguish between the two?

Are you trying to improve the original? Are you adding to it? If not, why are you doing a re-make?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I believe the idea was broached in the 3e book Dungeonscape, but 13th age made it a canon part of the setting.

Whoever came up with the idea, it's super-cool. I think something similar is at play in Heart: The City Beneath.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Are you trying to improve the original? Are you adding to it? If not, why are you doing a re-make?

I am pretty sure this is the plan that Justice is working on. To make a adaptation of Keep on the Borderlands as a new starter adventure that improves on the original.

Like the stuff you sound like you’re complaining about would be closer to what Goodman’s adaptation was, the exact same adventure but with older monsters using their current stats despite how that is not as balanced nowadays. And even that was clearly a labour of love

 

[Morrus]

You know, I’ve even heard that there are some people on this board who play Level Up, an OGL version of 5e.

But I’m sure those people would never claim that the existence of Level Up erases 5e.

No, it iterates 5E.

 

[occam]

I posted a little above on this.

You ask several questions there, I don't know if I have easy answers for all of them, but I'll attempt to answer them as I can.

As I mentioned above, I don't recall any fairytales where they presented Goblins (or Ogres or Trolls) with Children off the top of my head. There may be a story or two of the Goblin King (I seem to recall one or two may have) having a son or child, but i'd have to go through quite a big of books to find which story it was (The most plentiful source of stories I'd say were the Fairy Books by Andrew Lang, these were normally color coded as things such as the Red Fairy Book, the Blue Fairy Book, the Green Fairy book [and my personal favorite], and many more). Grimms Fairy Tales are normally a little bit more simplistic, but Goblins are generally more from English folklore rather than Germanic or other European stories and legends.

Interestingly enough, it was more the Elves and Fairies themselves which may have had children. Elves were NOT like D&D elves generally, they ranged in size and shape and demeanor. Sometimes they were good and sometimes they were very evil. They were far more likely to be married or have children than other creatures of lore. Goblins could be seen as evil elves (for example, Hobgoblins are more of a non-english goblin in origin, but it's basically a term for a Dark Elf...but NOT how we understand Dark Elves to be in D&D).

Normally, as Goblins were the monsters, anything outside of that wasn't really touched upon. They generally were there to torment or hurt the protagonist of the story. Though generally sentient to talk, torment, and threaten, they didn't have children in Fairytales and Lore as a general rule. It's like asking if a Vampire has Children after it becomes a Vampire. Monsters having children is more of a more recent evolution of ideas.

Which brings us to Tolkien. I suppose the first instance of Goblins in caves would be in The Hobbit. There wasn't really much about any children or anything at all about families in that book with Goblins. Goblins were more of creatures that threatened the protagonists of the story and then rode out to battle against the armies of Men, Elves, and Dwarves.

Right, the point being that the conceptions of monsters you've been raising as examples are nothing like the humanoids in Keep on the Borderlands, which have parents and children and live together in communities. And when people bring that up, it isn't because they're uninformed about monsters as depicted in folklore.

 

[mamba]

Are you trying to improve the original? Are you adding to it? If not, why are you doing a re-make?

I get what you mean by it, but how do you determine that whatever the starter set does with it does not fall into the 'try to improve and add to it' category (esp. since you specifically point out 'even attempted improvements') ?

Or in other words, why is Return to the Keep on the Borderlands a proper improvement and the starter set is not? Or are both cash grabs riding on nostalgia?

Return to the Keep on the Borderlands (2e) - Wizards of the Coast | Adventures | AD&D 2nd Ed. | Dungeon Masters Guild

Return to the Keep on the Borderlands (2e) - First published in 1981, B2, The Keep on the Borderlands by Gary Gygax as been played by more people than any other role

www.dmsguild.com

 

[Stormonu]

Besides B2, I'm trying to remember any other old 1E module that has "monster children" in it, and I'm drawing a blank.

 

[occam]

Besides B2, I'm trying to remember any other old 1E module that has "monster children" in it, and I'm drawing a blank.

Huh. That's interesting. I recall monster children being rather common back in the day, but I've read and played and DMed Keep on the Borderlands so many times that maybe I'm only remembering them from there.

 

[mamba]

Besides B2, I'm trying to remember any other old 1E module that has "monster children" in it, and I'm drawing a blank.

Against the Giants has young giants in it, Against the Slave Lords has young orcs and hobgoblins