Midnight Rider
First Post
This is not posted in the conversation about reviews being good or bad. This responds to a large number of inaccuracies found in Psion's review. I would have posted this as a comment to the review, but I could nto find such a button to comment with. So I post it here, believing it balances Psion's lack of attnetion to detail in his review of MOZ1. Posting it in the other topic would drown the point in a separate argument.
Psion writes:
“Prisoners of the Maze starts out by declaring that the PCs are members of a conspiracy to kill the King (King Ovar). Having failed, they get tossed in the a maze constructed by the King's wacko wizard, Zayene.
I can hear my players now. "We do WHAT!?" …… Unfortunately, this kneecaps any efforts to integrate this adventure into an ongoing campaign where getting the players with free will to go along with such a scheme might actually be a challenge. “
My reply:
As an experienced judge you have a million options for altering this and putting it into your campaign. If you can’t come up with an alternate, then you should stick to the pregenerated characters. Your difficulty with this is dependent on your ability, not the author's. The worst that can be said is that the module is not for inexperienced or uncreative DMs. However, to limit the audience by DM skill isn't desirable in this industry. DMs should become experienced by handling material like this because no matter how much joining material there is, they will still find it difficult until they loosen up and learn to wedge things in with plenty of believable miagination.
Psion writes:
“Further, none of the default characters are rogues (yet they where somehow chosen for an assassination attempt)”
In all of history, have all assassinations been conducted by Rogues? If you’re a king and a few rogues show up at a meeting in your throne room, what might you expect? This was clear to me. Unfortunately, this would not be clear to the literal minded computer players of DnD. So, yes, this is a flaw in that it doesn't cater in clarity to those who would not grasp the general situation. Those who would score low on a reading comprehension test would not understand this fact. It used to be that gamers were all able to read. Today the reading level requires that an author be more explicit if writing for a n audience of 100,000. Fortunately, Mr. Kuntz is still writign under the old assumpotion that dome of us can read and think. Elsewise, we'd be paying him for more fluff and less creative content.
Psion arbitrarily writes:
“…the maze can go on forever, as at each corner there is a hallway that teleports you to the hallway in the opposite corner. The text states that this ruse is totally and completely undetectable. I found this rather arbitrary, which is perfectly in keeping with the first edition feel that they are striving for, but in my opinion this is one of those bad first edition traits I would gladly leave behind. I would have much rather have seen them take the chance to live up to the "third edition rules" part of their slogan and given you a spot check….”
Why would a spot check be necessary? The idea is conducive to the plot. The rules shouldn’t limit the ability to introduce plot devices. This isn’t RULES-PLAYING. This is role-playing. Why would they notice it? Is it because there is a rule which exists? Should he have stated this was a DC of 60? He's saying that there are no features whcih would clue people into the transport. The walls are all consistent. If the carpet were more worn in one area compared to another, or if debris were left on the floor, perhaps. Or if air pressure changed, perhaps. But with no REASON for them to spot a difference, it makes NO SENSE to give them an ARBITRARY spot check. The natural ability of all players of the GAME to notice the pattern of the maze repeating would also not require a roll, since this is something which might dawn on the players as they experience this sense of the "adventure." To give them a spot check would preclude this sense of the adventure from growing on the players.
Psion writes:
“if they don't have a teleport spell, which is easily available at this level” in reference to the party escaping easily.
Well, they could have an Earthquake spell on a scroll as well, and there’s no saying they might not be able to dig out of the dungeon or wish themselves out, or any other number of a thousand other possibilities. However, all of this is covered under the section you must not have read and understood. It might have been written more explicitly, but again, Psion must not have understood it as so many others have. The section is on page 4, titled, “guidelines for regular players,” and states, “…none of the players may be equipped for a dungeon adventure…” and furthermore states, “__After checking the whole of this work__, DMs should have a fair idea about which items are or are not useful…” which implies that if you are using regular characters, you should probably notice that a teleport spell will need to be avoided if it occurs to you that a player might take one. Just as a writer may not give directions concenrign the PCs relieving themselves, there are some things which a DM can gloss over without decreasing the sense of adventure and fantasy in the game. Personally, as a DM I can think of a thousand ways to avoid the teleport situation. That is what the Dm is for: to keep the players in the adventure, reacting to the thousands of paths they could take leading away from it if they would decrease the drama and fun.
Psion writes:
“I found the harem encounter a bit jarring. Apparently, the intent was to lull the characters into believing they are just captives of king Ovar, and nothing in the room description or the depiction suggests anything otherwise. But once the jig is up and they get to combat, you will notice that the female fighter just so happens to be wearing full plate armor. Curious.”
It is even more curious that you have CLEARLY not read the encounter entirely!
It is clear in the description of Hrolga that she is wearing armor that “appears scored with many cuts and scratches and has over this a reversible yellow/green cape….. Hrolga did not receive receive her wounds from the spawn as Veerdra possibly suggests in conversation.” So, here we have the author admitting that the players will see this woman’s armor, using the word APPEARS, to indicate this. And furthermore, the author describes what might happen in conversation with the players, where Veerdra is making suggestions explaining the marks on the armor.
Psion, if the author can fogive your lack of reading skill, perhaps you can forgive the author's D20 mistakes? But if you're going to burn someone for their inaccuracies, you should try to be more accurate yourself. That is why professinal reviews are needed. Not sloppy reviews.
Keep in mind as well, you're reviewing someone's creation. To find flaws which aren't even flaws is unnerving. That anyone can do this in a public forum means that equal space to correcting the damage should be given, such as I am taking right here.
Psion writes when describing the monsters in the module:
“- Knight of Chaos: The knight of chaos is an animated statue of a knight. For some reason, it has a constitution score. This is somewhat vexing. Some early d20 system products made this mistake, but you would think that since the 3e books have been out over a year, most people would be up to speed on the fact that constructs and undead do not have constitution scores. Further, they seem to have an attack bonus about twice what it should be. There is a blurb in one of the abilities that implies that the knight of chaos somehow gets human qualities, but never really says what that means in game terms.”
It doesn’t need to describe it in 3rd edition game terms since it is clearly marked as an exception. I can find many of those in the 3rd edition rules themselves, where the rule is not fully explained (see 20th level monk abilities).
But the last sentence describing the Chaos Knight does explain this anomaly, saying, “The design DEFIES conventional understandings of this type of being, making it a superconstruct in many ways.” What is wrong with this? There needn’t be an entire section in the appendix detailing out "superconstructs." The idea stands as a method of adding mysterious content to an adventure. There is something mysterious about these. So what? Do you know everything there is about other types of creatures? No. Because they are explained differently in everyones campaigns. This is because the game is based on imagination.
In conclusion, Psion's review has a few merits, considering that there were distinct D20 errors made in the conversion process. But when did this conversion take place? It takes time to get material out. The conversion was possibly done some time ago, maybe even close to D20 coming out.
But after reading all of Psion's review, and all of the module, I find that 90% of his points are simply mistaken, and I truly wonder Psion has something against Rob Kuntz or Necromancer Games, or perhaps his motivation is innocent and he wants to be an important reviewer? Regardless, He is listed as an official reviewer for the ENWorld site. This means he should take more heat when he is just plain wrong!
Psion writes:
“Prisoners of the Maze starts out by declaring that the PCs are members of a conspiracy to kill the King (King Ovar). Having failed, they get tossed in the a maze constructed by the King's wacko wizard, Zayene.
I can hear my players now. "We do WHAT!?" …… Unfortunately, this kneecaps any efforts to integrate this adventure into an ongoing campaign where getting the players with free will to go along with such a scheme might actually be a challenge. “
My reply:
As an experienced judge you have a million options for altering this and putting it into your campaign. If you can’t come up with an alternate, then you should stick to the pregenerated characters. Your difficulty with this is dependent on your ability, not the author's. The worst that can be said is that the module is not for inexperienced or uncreative DMs. However, to limit the audience by DM skill isn't desirable in this industry. DMs should become experienced by handling material like this because no matter how much joining material there is, they will still find it difficult until they loosen up and learn to wedge things in with plenty of believable miagination.
Psion writes:
“Further, none of the default characters are rogues (yet they where somehow chosen for an assassination attempt)”
In all of history, have all assassinations been conducted by Rogues? If you’re a king and a few rogues show up at a meeting in your throne room, what might you expect? This was clear to me. Unfortunately, this would not be clear to the literal minded computer players of DnD. So, yes, this is a flaw in that it doesn't cater in clarity to those who would not grasp the general situation. Those who would score low on a reading comprehension test would not understand this fact. It used to be that gamers were all able to read. Today the reading level requires that an author be more explicit if writing for a n audience of 100,000. Fortunately, Mr. Kuntz is still writign under the old assumpotion that dome of us can read and think. Elsewise, we'd be paying him for more fluff and less creative content.
Psion arbitrarily writes:
“…the maze can go on forever, as at each corner there is a hallway that teleports you to the hallway in the opposite corner. The text states that this ruse is totally and completely undetectable. I found this rather arbitrary, which is perfectly in keeping with the first edition feel that they are striving for, but in my opinion this is one of those bad first edition traits I would gladly leave behind. I would have much rather have seen them take the chance to live up to the "third edition rules" part of their slogan and given you a spot check….”
Why would a spot check be necessary? The idea is conducive to the plot. The rules shouldn’t limit the ability to introduce plot devices. This isn’t RULES-PLAYING. This is role-playing. Why would they notice it? Is it because there is a rule which exists? Should he have stated this was a DC of 60? He's saying that there are no features whcih would clue people into the transport. The walls are all consistent. If the carpet were more worn in one area compared to another, or if debris were left on the floor, perhaps. Or if air pressure changed, perhaps. But with no REASON for them to spot a difference, it makes NO SENSE to give them an ARBITRARY spot check. The natural ability of all players of the GAME to notice the pattern of the maze repeating would also not require a roll, since this is something which might dawn on the players as they experience this sense of the "adventure." To give them a spot check would preclude this sense of the adventure from growing on the players.
Psion writes:
“if they don't have a teleport spell, which is easily available at this level” in reference to the party escaping easily.
Well, they could have an Earthquake spell on a scroll as well, and there’s no saying they might not be able to dig out of the dungeon or wish themselves out, or any other number of a thousand other possibilities. However, all of this is covered under the section you must not have read and understood. It might have been written more explicitly, but again, Psion must not have understood it as so many others have. The section is on page 4, titled, “guidelines for regular players,” and states, “…none of the players may be equipped for a dungeon adventure…” and furthermore states, “__After checking the whole of this work__, DMs should have a fair idea about which items are or are not useful…” which implies that if you are using regular characters, you should probably notice that a teleport spell will need to be avoided if it occurs to you that a player might take one. Just as a writer may not give directions concenrign the PCs relieving themselves, there are some things which a DM can gloss over without decreasing the sense of adventure and fantasy in the game. Personally, as a DM I can think of a thousand ways to avoid the teleport situation. That is what the Dm is for: to keep the players in the adventure, reacting to the thousands of paths they could take leading away from it if they would decrease the drama and fun.
Psion writes:
“I found the harem encounter a bit jarring. Apparently, the intent was to lull the characters into believing they are just captives of king Ovar, and nothing in the room description or the depiction suggests anything otherwise. But once the jig is up and they get to combat, you will notice that the female fighter just so happens to be wearing full plate armor. Curious.”
It is even more curious that you have CLEARLY not read the encounter entirely!
It is clear in the description of Hrolga that she is wearing armor that “appears scored with many cuts and scratches and has over this a reversible yellow/green cape….. Hrolga did not receive receive her wounds from the spawn as Veerdra possibly suggests in conversation.” So, here we have the author admitting that the players will see this woman’s armor, using the word APPEARS, to indicate this. And furthermore, the author describes what might happen in conversation with the players, where Veerdra is making suggestions explaining the marks on the armor.
Psion, if the author can fogive your lack of reading skill, perhaps you can forgive the author's D20 mistakes? But if you're going to burn someone for their inaccuracies, you should try to be more accurate yourself. That is why professinal reviews are needed. Not sloppy reviews.
Keep in mind as well, you're reviewing someone's creation. To find flaws which aren't even flaws is unnerving. That anyone can do this in a public forum means that equal space to correcting the damage should be given, such as I am taking right here.
Psion writes when describing the monsters in the module:
“- Knight of Chaos: The knight of chaos is an animated statue of a knight. For some reason, it has a constitution score. This is somewhat vexing. Some early d20 system products made this mistake, but you would think that since the 3e books have been out over a year, most people would be up to speed on the fact that constructs and undead do not have constitution scores. Further, they seem to have an attack bonus about twice what it should be. There is a blurb in one of the abilities that implies that the knight of chaos somehow gets human qualities, but never really says what that means in game terms.”
It doesn’t need to describe it in 3rd edition game terms since it is clearly marked as an exception. I can find many of those in the 3rd edition rules themselves, where the rule is not fully explained (see 20th level monk abilities).
But the last sentence describing the Chaos Knight does explain this anomaly, saying, “The design DEFIES conventional understandings of this type of being, making it a superconstruct in many ways.” What is wrong with this? There needn’t be an entire section in the appendix detailing out "superconstructs." The idea stands as a method of adding mysterious content to an adventure. There is something mysterious about these. So what? Do you know everything there is about other types of creatures? No. Because they are explained differently in everyones campaigns. This is because the game is based on imagination.
In conclusion, Psion's review has a few merits, considering that there were distinct D20 errors made in the conversion process. But when did this conversion take place? It takes time to get material out. The conversion was possibly done some time ago, maybe even close to D20 coming out.
But after reading all of Psion's review, and all of the module, I find that 90% of his points are simply mistaken, and I truly wonder Psion has something against Rob Kuntz or Necromancer Games, or perhaps his motivation is innocent and he wants to be an important reviewer? Regardless, He is listed as an official reviewer for the ENWorld site. This means he should take more heat when he is just plain wrong!
