D&D 5E (2024) Heroes of the Borderlands

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

It's wild to me that someone can say with a straight face that there's nothing to do in KotB except go to the caves and murder everyone there. I've run this module many times, converted it to every edition of D&D that exists to do so, and I've never had a single group of players do this. Even the most murderhobo group I've ever run through it got mixed up in the politics and factions in the caves.

Am I saying that no one ever went in and just systematically murdered everything that moves in the entire cave complex? No. I'm very sure plenty of groups have done that. But I don't believe that it's the standard method, and I can't believe that someone actually read the thing and came away with the idea that it's the only possible mode of play.

Faction Play in KotB is very sparely detailed, given only a single paragraph across 36 pages mentioning the idea of turning the various factions against each other. The same section DISCOURAGES the GM from doing any kind of faction play if they have a larger party.

Meanwhile, the module is full of encounters where the GM is explicitly told to have the monsters attack the party on sight, including:

• The Lizardmen
• The Mad Hermit
• The Kobold Lair entrance
• The Kobold Lair guards
• The Kobold Lair common grounds
• The Orc Lair entrance
• The Orc Lair ambush
• The Goblin Lair entrance
• The Goblin Lair guard post
• The imprisoned gnoll
• The Hobgoblin Lair guard post
• The trapped Hero
• The stirge cave
• The fire beetle cave
• The minotaur
• The Gnoll guard post
• The skeleton rooms
• The zombie rooms
• The torture chamber
• The medusa

Most of the other rooms not listed above may lack specific "attack on sight" directions, but they almost all have significant wordcounts describing how the various humanoids in the room wish to fight, and the valuables which can be looted off their corpses.

Very few rooms contain monsters which have explicit direction for negotions (namely, the Ogre, some of the prisoners/slaves, many of whom are written to then immediately betray the party) or contain anything other than humanoids to kill (very few traps, tricks, or puzzles to be found here).

 

[Lord Shark]

And anyway, if we're playing by old school rules, all those humanoids in the Caves are inherently, irredeemably, monstrously evil. Why on earth would you try to negotiate with them and expect anything other than a knife in the back? No one ever tried it any of the times I've played or run B2.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And anyway, if we're playing by old school rules, all those humanoids in the Caves are inherently, irredeemably, monstrously evil. Why on earth would you try to negotiate with them and expect anything other than a knife in the back? No one ever tried it any of the times I've played or run B2.

Heck, some of the hirelings from the keep are on Team Chaos and are explicitly there to knife you in the back. Gygax was not setting this up to be faction play by default.

 

[Cadence]

Heck, some of the hirelings from the keep are on Team Chaos and are explicitly there to knife you in the back. Gygax was not setting this up to be faction play by default.

Which never stopped me from having it crop up in as many of the times I've run it as I can remember...

In any case, given how early it was written and what the alignment rules were at the time, it still seemed ripe for doing lots with - especially with the encouragement to make it our own.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Most of the other rooms not listed above may lack specific "attack on sight" directions

Attack on sight for chaotic monsters is in the core rules for Basic D&D, so the encounters don’t need to state it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In any case, given how early it was written and what the alignment rules were at the time, it seemed ripe for doing lots with - especially with the encouragement to make it our own.

"Make your own fun" adventures can be great, if the table enjoys that kind of thing. In the early 1980s, for us, they were basically an excuse for a group of all thief PCs to roll into town and try and rob the town/keep blind, which was always fun and usually ended with everyone fleeing the guards.

 

[Nikosandros]

Attack on sight for chaotic monsters is in the core rules for Basic D&D, so the encounters don’t need to state it.

Both Moldvay and Mentzer have rules for monsters' reactions. There is no stipulation of monsters always attacking, except in specific cases such as zombies.

 

[Scott Christian]

The NPCs barely have names, nevermind personalities, motivations and agendas. So there is nothing for the players to interact with. Sure, you can add that (and I don’t doubt it will be in this new version), but there is nothing in the module to suggest that you do. You could add politics, trade opportunities, all sorts of things to make it a better sandbox. But none of that is actually in the adventure, nor is guidance for new players on how to create it.

From what you say, it sounds like what was good was your DM, not the module.

Having read a bunch of the classic TSR modules, I imagine that this was always the case when people remark on them fondly.

That, or they were 10 at the time.

I guess neither of you read my comment to the end. Ugh. Oh well.

I guess the next time the railroading conversation comes up, or the DM prep conversation comes up, I whole-heartedly look forward to seeing just as strong a reaction.

 

[Scott Christian]

The other thing I would like to point out is the obvious that many people are overlooking. The adventure is meant for levels 1-3. Of course, someone is going to say, But they still could have added names and motivations. But for anyone stating there is nothing to do beside cave romp (which there is much more, even if those arguers insist on denying it), fine then. Explore the swamp, woods, and caves. One level for each. Boom. You have "introduced" your players to the D&D world. Three levels. That's it. That is all it was meant to be.

 

[Mannahnin]

Faction Play in KotB is very sparely detailed, given only a single paragraph across 36 pages mentioning the idea of turning the various factions against each other. The same section DISCOURAGES the GM from doing any kind of faction play if they have a larger party.

Meanwhile, the module is full of encounters where the GM is explicitly told to have the monsters attack the party on sight, including:

• (trimmed for space)

Most of the other rooms not listed above may lack specific "attack on sight" directions, but they almost all have significant wordcounts describing how the various humanoids in the room wish to fight, and the valuables which can be looted off their corpses.

Very few rooms contain monsters which have explicit direction for negotions (namely, the Ogre, some of the prisoners/slaves, many of whom are written to then immediately betray the party) or contain anything other than humanoids to kill (very few traps, tricks, or puzzles to be found here).

Absolutely. Gary's instructions in this adventure do go directly against the best-practice wisdom of using reaction rolls and letting players negotiate and not get immediately betrayed (at least some of the time).

And anyway, if we're playing by old school rules, all those humanoids in the Caves are inherently, irredeemably, monstrously evil. Why on earth would you try to negotiate with them and expect anything other than a knife in the back? No one ever tried it any of the times I've played or run B2.

Where do you get that "inherently, irredeemably, monstrously evil" business? Can you quote from a rulebook? B/X doesn't say that. And neither does AD&D. The 1977 Monster Manual, under alignment says that the alignment listed is the "characteristic bent of a monster to law or chaos, good or evil, or towards neutral behavior possibly modified by good or evil intent. It is important with regards to the general behavior of the monster when encountered". That's talking about typical orientations and behavior. It's not ruling out exceptions or flexibility. The 1974 original rules also state that you roll for reactions of more intelligent monsters in anything other than a pursuit situation (Underworld and Wilderness Adventures, p12).

I'm sure you're accurately reporting your experiences with B2, though, if your DMs took Gary's advice in the module seriously and didn't tweak things.

Attack on sight for chaotic monsters is in the core rules for Basic D&D, so the encounters don’t need to state it.

It's not. There are a few specific exceptions, like zombies, or goblins attacking dwarves on sight.

Both Moldvay and Mentzer have rules for monsters' reactions. There is no stipulation of monsters always attacking, except in specific cases such as zombies.