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

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Melan]

I consider Keep on the Borderlands to be the best designed introductory module for D&D. It provides a novice DM a base of operations, a simple wilderness section and a beginning dungeon which is compartmental enough not to totally overwhelm a beginning party, yet extensive enough for that feel of accomplishment once the PCs complete it. For this reason, the separate (yet often interconnected) caves approach is not just adequate, it is a brilliant design decision.

The skeletal, bare-bones design is a definite strength. There is enough structure and guidance to sustain the play experience and teach one about designing adventures, and there is enough blank space to stimulate the imagination - the cave of the unknown, for example.

Regarding ecologies or the lack thereof, B2 and its success (which makes Mearls's old review all the more funny - B2 was bundled with D&D's bestselling edition, and may be the most popular roleplaying adventure ever) is a strong testament to the fact that good D&D is about fantastic adventures and not the kind of inbred culture-ecology-simulation some fans would prefer it to be. There are no ecological details in Keep because this aspect is superfluous in a fun game, and doesn't add to it. What it has instead are memorable encounters: the mad hermit or the shrine of evil chaos aren't explained by backstory or a mini-essay; they are mysterious and tantalizing, letting your imagination fill in the blanks. This is, contrary to game designer wisdom, good game design. Even in a comparatively "bread and butter" adventure like Keep on the Borderlands, the unexplained elements provide an air of mystique that creates sense of wonder and makes the experience a memorable one. If I had to choose one thing modern game designers could learn from B2, this would be it.

 

[tensen]

What part of this is he having a problem with? The man is probably living alone BECAUSE he is psychotic - he could have been banished from his village. What seems likely is that Mearles is having a problem with the "4th level thief" part.

What I have a problem with is thinking that EVERY SINGLE NPC in the world with levels got them by going on adventures of the sort that PCs undertake. That's too much mayhem for me to wrap my mind around - and I don't think it was much thought out by Mearles either.

But if you hide out in the woods long enough, there are bound to be lots of orcs and goblins and other nasty bits (that provide lots of treasure and XP) without you ever having to leave home.

Although the option to backstab them may come up a lot less often

 

[Storm Raven]

Damn, I can't find my copy.

Akrasia? Help me out here...This came up when we were playing through Keep last year. Do you remember?

(Aside: I really need to call up the guys and get a game going again...)

You are going to have a hard time figuring out which room has a giant skeleton, since there isn't one in B2. Perhaps there is one in Return to the Keep on the Borderlands: I'm not as familiar with that module.

 

[Quasqueton]

I notice an interesting thing missing from the reviews here that was a major problem for many with The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh – the NPC betrayer.

Several people said that Ned Shakeshaft in SSS was a bad thing – an NPC that will betray the PCs. A couple people said that he alone was the reason they said SSS was not a well-designed adventure module.

And yet, in KotB, there are many such NPCs. The priest in the Keep that will join the PCs and betray them. The prisoner in the bugbear cave that will attack immediately upon being released. The medusa chained up in the temple caves who will stone characters who come around the corner to rescue her. Why has no one complained about these?

Quasqueton

 

[Henry]

Just, is it well designed as a published adventure for general D&D play?

If it is, what could current module designers/authors learn from it? What should current module designers/authors try to emulate about it?

Quasqueton

I think it's one of the best D&D modules ever published, actually.

Why? Because in one slim volume of about 16 (18, counting cover maps) pages, it contains the bones for an ENTIRE campaign setting that could take from 1st to about 4th level. It contains a base of operations with all the most important businesses and people spelled out; it teaches the values of background and campaign lore, exemplified in the rumors table; a limited outdoor/wilderness exploration campaign; an installation of opponents that has basic rules spelled out for their alteration over time (such as some creatures moving in with other creatures, attracting new opponents, etc.) and it has an installation so large that many sessions could be spent running around, hiding out, clearing out, running away, etc. until the place is cleareed. Allies are listed as well as favors that can be done to strengthen their ties to the PCs, and even one big plot mystery that can really only be solved late in the adventure (Shrine of Evil Chaos.

What can designers learn? How to make a module a truly valuable item for DMs. Necromancer Games are one of the companies celebrated for learning this lesson, as many people call their modules "value-added" for the extra material, inserts, etc. included. When they jumped on board with the wilderlands box, it was because Judges' Guild was known for a campaign-setting type product, which in my opinion the "campaign-setting" idea was first touched into by Gygax in this very module.

They can also learn some other lessons, too. It was bare bones, and could have stood to be fleshed out more, and some designers (such as Necromancer) did learn this lesson and have improved upon it.

 

[Numion]

And yet, in KotB, there are many such NPCs. The priest in the Keep that will join the PCs and betray them. The prisoner in the bugbear cave that will attack immediately upon being released. The medusa chained up in the temple caves who will stone characters who come around the corner to rescue her. Why has no one complained about these?

Quasqueton, meet rose colored glasses, rose colored glasses - Quasqueton

 

[Melan]

And yet, in KotB, there are many such NPCs. The priest in the Keep that will join the PCs and betray them. The prisoner in the bugbear cave that will attack immediately upon being released. The medusa chained up in the temple caves who will stone characters who come around the corner to rescue her. Why has no one complained about these?
Quasqueton

Because there is no reason to. NPCs who aren't trustworthy are a logical part of the game... why would people complain about them? In fact, I couldn't even say these events are somehow illogical in this case - each of these NPCs would concievably have a good reason for attacking the party.

By the way, Numion, what the HELL does this have to do with rose coloured glasses? Do NPCs who betray PCs belong to a school of adventure design which is dated for some reason? Do they have no place in a "modern" adventure (whatever that means)? I have to confess I am totally blindsided by your comment. I don't get it.

 

[Quasqueton]

Because there is no reason to. NPCs who aren't trustworthy are a logical part of the game... why would people complain about them? In fact, I couldn't even say these events are somehow illogical in this case - each of these NPCs would concievably have a good reason for attacking the party.

Reverse my question then: why was Ned Shakeshaft complained about/mentioned as a bad design element in SSS?

Quasqueton

 

[Numion]

By the way, Numion, what the HELL does this have to do with rose coloured glasses? Do NPCs who betray PCs belong to a school of adventure design which is dated for some reason? Do they have no place in a "modern" adventure (whatever that means)? I have to confess I am totally blindsided by your comment. I don't get it.

Don't worry, I'll explain

KotB is for many the first D&D adventure. Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh is not. People complained about the traitor aspect in SSS. They did not complain about traitor aspect in KotB.

People remember fondly their first D&D adventures. My conclusion is that those adventures get a pass where others don't. That is called looking through rose colored glasses.

FWIW the traitor aspect is not dated by any means. In case of SSS people thought it was a bad design decision for a 'first adventure'. You know, would set the tone for not trusting any NPCs and all that ..