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

[Storm Raven]

As I see it a well-designed module will concisely cover a good cross-section of possibilites and explanations as to make it as easy as possible for the DM to run the module, and to remember some of the details that aid in verisimilitude.

But I'm still trying to figure out why this is a failing in the module. We have penned in basilisks. We have the possibility of wandering basilisks. Does anyone need a sign pointing to this saying "if they are wandering, they got out somehow"? Does a module have to spell out the obvious in order to be "well-designed"?

"Monsters ambush characters."

"Monsters can figure out reasonably easy ways to bypass their own traps."

"Mosnsters that are penned in who get out must have gotten out somehow."

These seem to me to be pretty obvious things. Does a module writer have to go into detailed explanations on these sorts of points?

 

[el-remmen]

Detailed explanation? No.

A line or two explaining such things when they might cause confusion or situations where a DM might struggle to explain something. Then, yes.

Again, just because it is obvious to you does not mean it is obvious to everyone. . .

Take the troll in the box situation - if the troll did not burst out and immediately start attacking everyone b/c it was a tiny captive in there (a kind of "in case of emergency break box" thing) I know my players would say something along the lines of "Are you telling me the troll has been waiting in the box for someone to come along just so it can burst out and surprise?"

This is just an example based on what was discussed here - I don't remember that part of the module - so mostly like I scratched the whole troll in a box thing as "dumb" when I ran it.

 

[Quasqueton]

El-remmen suggested that you would have liked to see more details spelled out in the module and on several occasions you seemed to be suggesting that some of the "problems" would have ceased to be problems if the explanations offered by other posters were included in the module rather than left to the individual DM to decipher. The fact that you failed to contradict El-remmen's suggestion implied, to me, that he was correct in asserting that more detailed explanations would have improved the module in your mind.

OK, let me explain.

I’ll make up an example unrelated to this module (to show in stark clarity what I’m talking about):

If a great red dragon was in a 10’x10’ room carved of ice, what is the worst offense: That no explanation is given for why? Or that the set up exists at all?

I’m complaining about the set up, not the lack of explanation. Now, if there is an explanation, the module should tell it. And just because some DMs can come up with explanations on their own, doesn’t mean that the original module is excused from a dumb set up.


An example related to this module:

A pair of basilisks can be encountered wandering about the complex. I complain about this set up, and yet people respond that an explanatory interpretation can be extrapolated from the text. But still, there are basilisks roaming the freakin’ complex.


And that’s what I’m talking about in many of the A1 encounters. Not that they aren’t explained in the text, but that the nonsensical set up exists in the first place. If there is a logical explanation, the module should give it, so the DM isn’t left thinking “WTF?” A1 has a lot of WTF? set ups, and that some DMs can explain them through some convoluted reasoning doesn’t make the existence of these items any less stupid. It just says that the DM is creative even when given dumb stuff to work around.

Quasqueton

 

[Ourph]

And that’s what I’m talking about in many of the A1 encounters. Not that they aren’t explained in the text, but that the nonsensical set up exists in the first place. If there is a logical explanation, the module should give it, so the DM isn’t left thinking “WTF?” A1 has a lot of WTF? set ups, and that some DMs can explain them through some convoluted reasoning doesn’t make the existence of these items any less stupid. It just says that the DM is creative even when given dumb stuff to work around.

I guess that's just a disconnect we're having because, as I recall, the items you are talking about didn't really jump out at me as "WTF moments" when I first read the module but (primarily) as "Hey, wow! moments" (as in, "Hey, wow! It's really cool that the wandering monster tables support the text in the basilisk lair that indicates the pen isn't that well constructed and can't always keep them in). The explanations for all the things you mention as "WTF moments" just seemed fairly obvious to me (far from convoluted) and the situation seemed to be absolutely consistent with the setup of the area. If the slavers are using a burnt-out, abandoned temple complex and have only recently moved in, cleaned up a few areas and either captured, killed or driven off some of the monstrous inhabitants then there are bound to be inconveniences in getting around or areas with weird access points or un-allied monsters wandering the less used parts of the complex which have escaped the Slaver's purges or which have escaped from their makeshift enclosures.

If the Slavers were using a purpose-built hideout of their own design and had been in residence for years, yeah a lot of the stuff in the module wouldn't make sense, but given the setup, the things you're criticizing actually seem like brilliantly creative touches by the author that emphasize the Slaver's situation and enhance the verisimilitude of the environment rather than detract from it. As a result, to me, the explanations are completely unnecessary, because the situation doesn't seem at all incongruous.

 

[DM-Rocco]

not only a classic module but a great piece of AD&D history. I converted it to 3.0 and ran my group through the whole series. It is a great series and an invaluable piece of history.

 

[Storm Raven]

Take the troll in the box situation - if the troll did not burst out and immediately start attacking everyone b/c it was a tiny captive in there (a kind of "in case of emergency break box" thing) I know my players would say something along the lines of "Are you telling me the troll has been waiting in the box for someone to come along just so it can burst out and surprise?"

But if you read the description of the encounter, it is pretty apparent what is going on. The troll has control over its size change - it is holding the stone of diminution. If it drops it, then it grows to normal size. It is waiting in ambush, likely alerted by the invasion of the PCs into the complex (it is virtually impossible to get to Room 18 without an alarm of some sort being raised) and placed there to wait to surprise unwelcome guests, just like the half-orc assassin in the same room is hiding in the shadows waiting to attack intruders. Do you really need the module writer to tell you "the troll is waiting to ambush intruders"?

 

[Gentlegamer]

A pair of basilisks can be encountered wandering about the complex. I complain about this set up, and yet people respond that an explanatory interpretation can be extrapolated from the text. But still, there are basilisks roaming the freakin’ complex.


And that’s what I’m talking about in many of the A1 encounters. Not that they aren’t explained in the text, but that the nonsensical set up exists in the first place. If there is a logical explanation, the module should give it, so the DM isn’t left thinking “WTF?” A1 has a lot of WTF? set ups, and that some DMs can explain them through some convoluted reasoning doesn’t make the existence of these items any less stupid. It just says that the DM is creative even when given dumb stuff to work around.

Of course, all of this discussion is based on opinion, but the "dumb stuff" you see is no less the operation of your own sensibilities as those who have evaluated the module and found no problems with it. That is, you're reading "dumb stuff" into the module where others have found those areas logical based on the reading of the text itself and the general set-up of the adventure. As has been observed, based on what you've pointed out as "bad design," the assumption that fuller explanation in the text would have appeased you is logical. It now seems that no explanation given in the module would satisfy you, since it is all "dumb stuff." That essentially removes the discussion from objective criteria to purely subjective taste preferences concerning what is "dumb" or "cool" or whatever.

The converse of what you wrote can also be true: the DM is dumb even when given creative stuff to work with.

 

[Hussar]

But, Gentlegamer, in a well designed module, I shouldn't have to play "guess the reason" for something to be where it is. It should either be blindingly obvious (light torches in a room with creatures without infravision) or it should be explained. It doesn't take a whole lot to explain, but, without those explanations, we're down to working it out for ourselves.

If something is well designed, I shouldn't have to do that. Well designed adventures shouldn't make me flip back and forth between multiple areas to figure out why something works. Including a paragraph on how things work isn't going to break the adventure.

 

[Quasqueton]

…the assumption that fuller explanation in the text would have appeased you is logical.

If something leaves a DM thinking “WTF?”, then *some* explanation (if there is explanation) should be included in the text. With explanation, the something might not be dumb, after all. But then again, some WTF? things will still be dumb, even with lengthy and in-depth explanation.

It now seems that no explanation given in the module would satisfy you, since it is all "dumb stuff."

I never suggested such. It is not all “dumb stuff”. Some stuff in the module is neat, but just executed poorly. Some stuff is neat, and executed well. (I love the scared orcs with all the holy symbols nailed to the door to keep out undead – and I have used that concept in my own homebrew adventures for chuckles.)

The converse of what you wrote can also be true: the DM is dumb even when given creative stuff to work with.

Yes, and I have stated such myself, many times before. (I had a bad DM for the well-designed adventure Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh.)

You know, I apologize for apparently kicking someone’s cherished memories. I just personally find too many WTF? items in this adventure module to call it well designed. But since I’m not the only one to speak up about them, it’s not like I’m the some lone lunatic shouting out on the street corner. I’ve mentioned examples of what I see as major problems, and I’ve explained why I see them as problems. Now, though, I’m having to just continuously repeat myself as more people come in tag teaming against me and twisting my statements to argue.

Quasqueton

 

[3catcircus]

I think my biggest problems (Re: the basiliks) is that if they occur as wandering monsters, and you're supposed to take them off the total number held in their pen, shouldn't the module have stated "Remember, if the party encountered any basiliks in the area as a wandering monster, remove them from this area, and make note of fresh construction (new mortar, half built wall, etc).

It's that kind of detail that makes something well designed, where details reinforce each other. Something that has no application to something else,e xcept as a vague footnote, really detracts from the ease of running the adventure.

But it shouldn't have to explicitly state that. I am operating under the assumption that up until the 1990's, the general populace wasn't as much of a bunch of mindless sheeple and writers didn't need to explicitly spell out everything. It was assumed that the DM was smart enough to think about that and decide how he wanted to handle that on his own.

Sure - when we were kids, we'd hand-wave things or have contradictions and didn't worry about it. As an adult, when I read an adventure module, I *do* think about those little details and thank the authors that they left the details open-ended enough for me to work out how I see fit.