Is The Keep on the Borderlands a well-designed adventure module?

[Quasqueton]

Ned in U1: Tied up and gagged, alone in an open room with wandering monsters. Time limit to reasonableness --> a few hours? Plan acceptability: Very low.

Are there wandering monsters in the "haunted" house? And Ned only has to be there an hour (or two at most) for the PCs to discover him.

It still seems very similar to me (the Priest in the Keep, Ned in the house) in that they both are NPCs that join up with the party with the intent to betray the party. If such is a bad design element in one module, then it should be a bad design element in the other.

Or, as in my opinion, if it is a fine and acceptable design element in one module, then it should be fine and acceptable in the other.

Quasqueton

 

[Delta]

Are there wandering monsters in the "haunted" house? And Ned only has to be there an hour (or two at most) for the PCs to discover him.

Yes. Every 10 minutes a chance for -- goblins, giant rats, giant weasal, or giant ants.

 

[Quasqueton]

Yes. Every 10 minutes a chance for -- goblins, giant rats, giant weasal, or giant ants

Then he only needs to worry about the goblins (have to open the door).

Quasqueton

 

[cildarith]

Then he only needs to worry about the goblins (have to open the door).

Quasqueton

The others can come in through the fireplace, IIRC...

 

[Hussar]

In BD&D, it took a long time to get up to 3rd level. Especially since it was very easy to get killed. The Caves of Chaos recruit new monsters and the Priests can animate slain monsters.

So, yes, a group could adventure for years. I had two campaigns in the Keep that lasted over a year (one in the early 80's, one in 3e).

Eh? I played BD&D. It didn't take any years of game time to hit third level. Of course, one year isn't quite the same as "years".

Hang on. "Priests can animate slain monsters"? The only priest worth speaking of is 3rd level. He has two spells - cause light wounds and cause fear. How much undead is he animating? IIRC, animate dead was a tad beyond what a 3rd level cleric could cast. I could be mistaken, and, I'm sure if I am, someone will tell me so. However, as I said, I have the module open in front of me. Yup, no animate dead.

I'm thinking Numion had the right of things. Nostalgia colored glasses and all that.

 

[lukelightning]

Would that be the "Hey Rube" version of Bree-Yark, or the "Intruders" version?

They're the same. "Hey Rube" was old circus/carnival slang for "trouble!" So if some carnie saw trouble (crime, or possibly the police, who knows), they'd shout out "Hey Rube!" as if they were calling someone; the source of the trouble wouldn't know that an alarm has been raised.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

It inspired this:

'nuff said.

 

[Melan]

Well, I'll cop to the fact that I hadn't actually read the Keep in some time. So, I cracked open the cover once again and took a look. Even went to where Delta directed me. This is what I found:
...
So, basically, there is a 1 in 10 chance that the priest is even IN the tavern each time the party happens to be there.
...
There is a very small chance that the priest will ever be in the same room as the party. There is an even smaller chance that the party will be interested in him even if he is - after all, if I need a healer, why am I in the bar and not getting healed at the chapel? So, unless the DM contrives the situation, the chances are very, very slight that the priest will have any impact whatsoever upon the game.

But, hey, this is the best example of module design right? After all, all those who are chiming in and talking about it have also read the module recently no?

Okay, I reread the module, and I don't see your problem. Every time the PCs visit, there is a 10% chance of finding any of these characters. There is a good probability they will meet someone interesting - a captain of the keep, possible hirelings for the expedition, or the evil cleric. On multiple visits (pretty likely), the probabilities will keep increasing. There is no guarantee the PCs will encounter the cleric. But there is no need for it. There is no need to standadise the play experience. Sometimes they are going to meet the sergent of the guard and maybe get a rumor or some "mission". Sometimes they will meet the cleric. Sometimes they find the priest. That's not bad design at all.

 

[Hussar]

It's not a flaw, it's a feature?

Heh. Kidding aside, I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Entirely random elements are not a great way of introducing important characters. Sure, there is a chance that the evil priest will be in the tavern. 10%. But, there is a much greater chance (90%) that he won't be. In other words, a major source for an interesting line in the module is relagated to a single die roll.

I find it strange that people would say that random, rare elements make for good game design. It doesn't matter how fantastic the idea is, if it never sees the light of day, it's a wash. Who cares that there is an evil priest in the Keep if the party never meets him?

Again, it comes down to how you define good design. To me, elements which are so rare as to hardly be seen, are not an example of good design. To meet the priest, by the module, you have to go to the tavern. Never mind that there are two places to eat and meet people, and the party is likely staying at the other one since the tavern doesn't have rooms for rent. So, right off the bat, there is less incentive for the party to actually be here. Even if they do go here, there's only a 1 in 10 chance that they can meet the priest. The other nine times, they don't.

My point, if you swim back upthread a bit, was that the odds of actually meeting the priest were slight unless the DM massages the situation. I'm not sure if that's an assumption that can be made in a beginner module.

 

[Dr Simon]

Quasqueton - as this the "General RPG" section, any plans on starting design (or experience) columns on adventures that aren't D&D? I only ask as I'd love to slate the Shadowrun adventures