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

[3catcircus]

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

The fact that basilisks *can* be wandering monsters implies that they could escape from their walled-in area. The description of the walled-in area lends itself to this possibility. The fact that the flame-thrower weapon is pointed *in* to the courtyard area that contains the walled-in basilisk area instead of out the main gates lends itself to this as well.

I just don't see the problem. Occupants know basilisks can escape, so they have the flamethrower and keep them penned-in and the wall patched as often as possible. Does it make sense for the basilisk to be in the occupied-by-the-living areas? No - so ignore that result when checking for wandering monsters when the PCs are not in the rubble-filled courtyard.

Likewise, unless the PCs are spied on or there is otherwise a warning, don't have the troll in the box.

This isn't rocket science - it only takes a few minutes to work out the details that, by definition, have to be individualized to each DM's campaign.