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

[mamba]

Yes it does, because a lot of people disagree with you. Your opinion is not fact.

eh, some things are a matter of taste, and some are basically always worse than others, no matter your taste

Traps that you have no way to detect and just randomly stumble into are worse than ones that you can detect and maybe disarm / avoid. Nonsense settings with no rhyme or reason are worse than ones that have some theme and logic, etc

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I don't see how this can be anything like the original in terms of plot.

How come, the original plot was stop raids on areas around the keep and figure out the evil cult behind the Caves of Chaos.

 

[pemerton]

not being able to be all things to all people does not excuse creating a bare bones highly improbable / nonsensical scenario with no intrinsic motivations however.

The scenario in B2 is not about identifying motivations or enjoying a plausible story. It's a dungeon to be beaten.

I know, from experience, that it is possible to use the module in a different way (see eg Keep on the Borderlands shenanigans). But that's a departure from what it is written for.

 

[ECMO3]

How come, the original plot was stop raids on areas around the keep and figure out the evil cult behind the Caves of Chaos.

By stop you mean slaughter various humanoid tribes ... drive them from their home .... and take their wealth for yourself. All to protect the "civilized" lands pushing against the caves.

The humanoid tribes were the main evil in the caves of Chaos, the cleric was merely an organizing force that made them more of a existential threat than a minor annoyance.

I don't think type of plot that works well in the modern era.

 

[Scott Christian]

By stop you mean slaughter various humanoid tribes ... drive them from their home .... and take their wealth for yourself.

I don't think type of plot that works well in the modern era.

It's strange to me. It is like your view of this adventure is so narrow, that you can't imagine someone else playing it differently than how you describe. I am sure, if someone said, "Hey, we were running Rime of the Frostmaiden, but then the players decided they wanted to help destroy Ten Towns because one of the towns was sacrificing people," you wouldn't have a problem with it. They did what their table decided to do. The DM may have presented a different context.

So why is it so hard to believe that some people played this adventure and didn't just slaughter everything? Why is it so hard to believe that for many tables, they formed factions with one of the groups? Why is it so hard to believe the DM didn't set up one of the groups as really, really, really, evil? (Maybe the intro was that group killing a man and terrorizing his wife.) Why is it so hard to believe that certain DMs set part of the caves up as an evil cult, that if left alone, would eventually kill all the creatures in there - and then the Keep?

It just seems myopic.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

It's strange to me. It is like your view of this adventure is so narrow, that you can't imagine someone else playing it differently than how you describe. I am sure, if someone said, "Hey, we were running Rime of the Frostmaiden, but then the players decided they wanted to help destroy Ten Towns because one of the towns was sacrificing people," you wouldn't have a problem with it. They did what their table decided to do. The DM may have presented a different context.

So why is it so hard to believe that some people played this adventure and didn't just slaughter everything? Why is it so hard to believe that for many tables, they formed factions with one of the groups? Why is it so hard to believe the DM didn't set up one of the groups as really, really, really, evil? (Maybe the intro was that group killing a man and terrorizing his wife.) Why is it so hard to believe that certain DMs set part of the caves up as an evil cult, that if left alone, would eventually kill all the creatures in there - and then the Keep?

It just seems myopic.

Reviewing a module based on what a DM could hypothetically add to it doesn't make any sense. Yes, a DM can change anything and run things differently than they're written, certainly. That's not really saying anything.

What I am criticizing about kotb is what is in the text.

 

[mamba]

The scenario in B2 is not about identifying motivations or enjoying a plausible story. It's a dungeon to be beaten.

I am ok with beating a dungeon as the mission, but the dungeon still needs to be plausible and not just a pile of random monsters and traps.

 

[tombowings]

Reviewing a module based on what a DM could hypothetically add to it doesn't make any sense. Yes, a DM can change anything and run things differently than they're written, certainly. That's not really saying anything.

What I am criticizing about kotb is what is in the text.

Every adventure is hypothetical until it makes its away to the game table.

Moreover, every DM is unique, as is his/her world (even if its a reflection of another). The idea that any DM runs a module straight RAW is--unusual. The idea that every groups of PCs approaches the caves the same way is equally so.

Perhaps, I run in unusual circles, but I've never run a module that didn't go off the rails mid-way. My players have always acted outside the writers' expectations--thereby turning the adventure on its head And my gaming experience has been better for it.

Standard set up + wacky PC antics = gaming perfection (YMMV).

 

[mamba]

Every adventure is hypothetical until it makes its away to the game table.

agreed, but you still need to base a review on ‘what is there’ and not on what a DM can hypothetically turn it into (good or bad)

 

[Arilyn]

agreed, but you still need to base a review on ‘what is there’ and not on what a DM can hypothetically turn it into (good or bad)

Also, the more interesting encounters, NPCs, etc., the more likely it can be spun and altered to taste. If I read a bland module, I'm very unlikely to be inspired to make it my own.