Is Slave Pits of the Undercity a well-designed adventure module?

[Ourph]

The map for A1, in particular, makes very little sense to me. I can't imagine why anyone would build a temple complex such that the two major areas are separated by a thick wall. If the chapel area is sacred and the stables are impure, then most religions would have built two separate buildings. It doesn't make sense.

The temple complex has been burnt down and the slavers have reconstructed parts of using the remaining stone portions as a starting point. The buildings may very well have been separate or constructed as one and connected by doors that no longer exist.

The fact is, the slavers DO have several ways of getting between the two upper portions of the complex. They are both connected by the underground tunnels. IMO that's the most difficult part of using A1, forcing yourself to think of both levels of the complex as fully integrated and connected, despite being on separate maps.

 

[Vegepygmy]

No, but I sure do love it!

 

[Quasqueton]

Are you sure you DMed this? And are recollecting the adventure correctly?

Yes, I’m sure. I got it off my shelf last night and looked it over again. I have two copies of the module, and both have my DMing notes written in pencil. Rereading the DMing notes, and thinking back, I remember that I’ve actually run it twice (somewhere in the 20-25 years ago range).

Rereading it confirmed what I remembered about it.

I really don’t have the desire to go into an item by item debate about this module* (and your rebuttals to my stated problems are incorrect – if the basilisks are “confined” to one room, why are they on the wandering monster chart for the complex?). I don’t know how, if you are reading it, you don’t see the logical/logistics problems I mention (and more – the “troll in the box”?).

Others here have made the same comments, generally, that I’ve made specifically, so it’s not like I’m being picky or petty.

Both times I had to modify it for the reasons people have already advanced - illogical placement of monsters and traps, some unusual areas of the map…

The map for A1, in particular, makes very little sense to me.

a few too many out-of-place elements and monsters

To use it in campaign play it needs a lot of addition and reworking from the DM.

with a great deal of modification

A few OOP monsters where one wonders how they can exist next door to all the rest.

*On second thought, if you want to pick one item at a time to discuss, I’ll do that. But I’m not going to write long point by point rebuttals to the whole module.

Quasqueton

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes, I’m sure. I got it off my shelf last night and looked it over again. I have two copies of the module, and both have my DMing notes written in pencil. Rereading the DMing notes, and thinking back, I remember that I’ve actually run it twice (somewhere in the 20-25 years ago range).

Rereading it confirmed what I remembered about it.

I have it in front of me now (and am in the process of converting it for my current campaign) and I don't see any of the problems you are talking about.

I really don’t have the desire to go into an item by item debate about this module* (and your rebuttals to my stated problems are incorrect – if the basilisks are “confined” to one room, why are they on the wandering monster chart for the complex?). I don’t know how, if you are reading it, you don’t see the logical/logistics problems I mention (and more – the “troll in the box”?).

The only way the basilisks can become wandering mosnters is if they break out of the sealed area they are confined in. The fact that this might happen does not change the fact that, as keyed in the module, the basilisks are sealed into an area. The module even goes into length describing the recently constructed brick walls used to keep them in, and the recent patching that has been applied to them.

And the "logical" problems you mentioned are either explained by the text, or simply don't exist. (The troll in the box is there because of a stone of diminution, and is likely assumed to be there because there is almost no way for the party to approach that particular chamber without alerting the inhabitants, giving them time to prepare).

Others here have made the same comments, generally, that I’ve made specifically, so it’s not like I’m being picky or petty.

And most of those comments are just wrong on the substance. Nothing gives you a feel for a module like converting it. Not even DMing it. And the substance of your logic/logistics complaints just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

 

[Storm Raven]

The map for A1, in particular, makes very little sense to me. I can't imagine why anyone would build a temple complex such that the two major areas are separated by a thick wall. If the chapel area is sacred and the stables are impure, then most religions would have built two separate buildings. It doesn't make sense.

The original complex, as described in the text, was three stories tall. Only the first story remains intact. Is it so odd to think that there might have been connecting passages on one or more of the upper floors?

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

Playing a module (as a Player with a PC) rarely gives one real insight into a module's design (good or bad). A good DM can make a bad adventure play well, and a bad DM can make a good adventure play poorly.

I would have thought that respondants in these threads have actually read the module, not merely played in it.

Quasqueton

Sorry, should have made my post clearer-I was the DM for that adventure.

 

[Arnix]

I must say, I absolutely loved this adventure.

I have run it in every edition (other than 3.5) of DnD including Skills&Powers 2.5 characters.

If the DM runs it well, the party will enjoy it. If the DM runs it poorly, then the players will not enjoy it. This can be said for any module.

If you are looking at "why do x, y, and z" monsters live together... who cares for the most part. The only person who will know that, most of the time, is the DM. The player will have to take it at face value that the monsters should be able to co-exist. As a DM, you should be able to ad-lib a little here and there.

I thik the module gives the DM enough info to make the module his or her own, without making it a template with no feel.

Now, there are a couple of traps/tricks that have never made any sense to me, but I let them slide. People do things all the time that make no sense to me, but thats life. Why shouldn't we assume that the NPCs may be crazy and/or a little paranoid. They are "evil" after all.

 

[Quasqueton]

The only way the basilisks can become wandering mosnters is if they break out of the sealed area they are confined in. The fact that this might happen does not change the fact that, as keyed in the module, the basilisks are sealed into an area. The module even goes into length describing the recently constructed brick walls used to keep them in, and the recent patching that has been applied to them.

Page 4:
"Ruin Encounter Table (roll d6)
Encounter occurs 1 in 6 (d6), check each turn.
. . .
3. 1-2 Basilisks
. . ."


"* Remove the appropriate number of basilisks from encounter area #10, temple level."

There is no explanation of whether they "break out of the sealed area" (#10) or not, but they somehow can be encountered outside their "den". And this fact (that they can be encountered randomly in the complex) is, to me, poor design.

(The troll in the box is there because of a stone of diminution, and is likely assumed to be there because there is almost no way for the party to approach that particular chamber without alerting the inhabitants, giving them time to prepare).

"Is likely assumed" is a (legitimate) interpretation, but it is not mentioned by the text. The text tells what spells the cleric will cast if alerted "through loud noise, etc." that the PCs are coming (silence, prayer, resist fire, protection from good), but there's no mention as to how the troll got in the poor box (diminutized), or why it's there. It just bursts out two rounds after the party enters the room (while they ae probably engaged in battle with the half-orcs). (There's no mention of whether the orcs and cleric even know it is there.) It's a neat trick/gimmick to surprise the PCs, sure, but it just doesn't make any sense -- it's just thrown in without explanation or connection.

And how did those 3 half-orc fighters, the cleric, the assassin, the troll, and the 10 chained prisoners get into that room, anyway? Down the hall past the glyph of warding (they'd all, including the slaves, have to speak the name of the glyph to get past without setting it off), or up through the trap door (which is literally trapped, and can't be disarmed from below) from the sewage-filled aspis grub hatchery or the net-trapped and strongly defended aspis main chamber?


When I ran this adventure, I had a basilisk come up as a wandering encounter. I ignored that, because it made no sense for the basilisk to be where the encounter happened (really, makes no sense outside their "den", at all).

And when the PCs overcame the half-orcs, cleric, assassin, and troll, they questioned the slaves about how to get around in the complex. I said the slaves were in too bad a shape and too scared to relate anything useful, because even *I*, the DM, with the map of the complex couldn't figure out how they got around in the complex.

This is just two of the problems I see with Slave Pits of the Undercity. There are more. And its the sum total of the problems that makes me call A1 a poorly designed module. I love the concept, and like I said, I made a whole campaign based on the concept.

Now, you may not see these items as problematic. Great for you -- you may be a very creative DM to work around these things. I, however, 20+ years ago, could not. And I would not try now without working this module over heavily to mold it into some form of sense.

Quasqueton

 

[3catcircus]

I found this adventure to be a perfect example of abysmal design. (And I did DM a group through this one time.)

It’s an old burned-out temple being used as a slaver base.

1- A basilisk (or 2?) is loose in the area, even listed on the wandering monster chart – how do you conduct slaver business in a compound with an untamed basilisk running around free?

2- Ghouls and ghasts are loose in the area, even listed on the wandering monster chart – and only one minor cleric in the whole compound.

3- There are numerous rooms where the occupants can’t logically get out and move about the complex because of obstacles, traps, monsters – how did they get into that room to begin with?

4- There are tricks set up that expect the PCs to enter the room from illogical (in the sense of the defense expectations) directions – why set up a deception directed at someone coming up out of the sewers? – why aim a flamethrower inward toward the interior of the temple?

5- The orcs (the main grunts of the base) are so outclassed by the uncontrolled monsters of the place, one wonders how the place survives.

Now, sure, a *good* DM could finagle all this into some sense, but a well-designed adventure shouldn’t require that. Just about every encounter in this adventure is illogical (in an in-game sense). As much as I loved the premise, both of the slavers compund and the city (and I made Highport a full campaign location), the actual design of the adventure is dumb.

Quasqueton

Actually, the answer as to the Basilisk and Undead, *and* the flamethrower is all right there... They slavers are using a burnt-out temple. You *know* about the basilisks and keep a huge wall between them and you, and you also know about the undead, so that is why the flamethrower is pointed inward. You are attempting to tame the areas that are still teeming with undead.

The only real problem I see with the dungeon is reconciling why the human(oids) would associate with the Aspis.

 

[3catcircus]

As a linear tournament-style dungeon it's a classic -- full of memorable set-piece combats and challenging obstacles/puzzles, perfectly paced to be played through in 2 4-hour sessions (one for the upper level, one for the lower level). We played it in this manner (I even used a stop-watch to time the session) back in the 80s and had a great time -- stripping out all the extraneous campaign concerns and focusing solely on "beating" the dungeon in the shortest time possible made for a great change of pace (and I was suprised at how well my players were able to deal with the verious tactical and logistical challenges when they really focused on it).

As a non-linear campaign module it's considerably more problematic. The premise is good -- a mystery/investigation-style scenario wherein the players track the slavers back to Highport, uncover the location of their hideout, and raid it, but the module only provides the "final scene" and all the rest must be created by the individual DM. Plus the non-linear "campaign" sections of the dungeon don't meld well with the linear "tournament" sections -- much of the latter seems either too arbitrary or too scripted when viewed from the perspective of the former. For campaign play I'd rather have seen this module devote more attention to the investigation before the finale and then cut out a lot of the arbitrary tournament-style challenges and given us more detail on, for instance, the organization of the slavers and what they do when they're not waiting around to ambush a bunch of pesky PCs.

To use the module as a recreation of the original tournament run it's great. To use it in campaign play it needs a lot of addition and reworking from the DM. So I voted "Other."

Some people despised the A1-4 supermodule repackage, but it adds the extra oomph for using A1 in a campaign and having a logical reason for the PCs being expected. I ran this under 3.x a few years ago and it ran flawlessly as part of a campaign involving a Cormyrean military expeditionary force fighting Thayan forces in Telflamm and surroundings. Thayans need/want slaves, hence the tie-in to the slavers.